LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


t 


Publish* 


t   N  Y. 


THE 


LIFE  AND  PUBLIC  SERVICES 


OF 


HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 


iflr  a  trctaut  0n  StoL 


TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED  A  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH  OP 


HON.  HANNIBAL  HAMLIN. 


BY  D.  W.  BARTLETT, 

VASHINGTON  CORRESPONDENT  OP  THE  NEW-YORK  INDEPENDENT  AND  EVENING  POST, 

AND  AUTHOR  OF  "  LIVES  OF  MODERN  AGITATORS,"  LIFB  OF  "  LADY 
JANE  GHAT,"  "  JOAN  OF  ARC,"  BTO. 


LIBRARY  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 


A.     B.     B  TJ  B  D  I  C  K  , 

No.  115  NASSAU-STREET. 
1860. 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFOPMTA 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1830,  by 
H.    DAYTON, 

In  the  Clerk's  office,  of  tho  District  Court,  for  the  Southern  District  of 
New-York. 


CONTENTS. 


PART   FIRST. 

EARLY   HISTORY. 

PAGE. 

Lincoln's  Birth  and  Parentage 15 

His  Father's  Family  remove  to  Indiana 17 

His  Limited  Opportunities  of  Education 18 

A  Flatboatman  on  the  Mississippi 18 

Removal  to  Illinois 19 

Employed  in  splitting  Rails 19 

Enlists  as  a  Volunteer  in  the  Black-Hawk  "War,  and  serves  through  the 

^Campaign 21 

Buys  a  Stock  of  Goods  on  Credit,  and  opens  a  Store 21 

Appointed  Postmaster 22 

Studies  Law 22 

Practiees  Surveying 23 

Elected  to  the  Legislature 24 

His  Position  on  the  Slavery  Question  in  1837 24 

Removes  to  Springfield,  and  opens  a  Law  Office 24 

His  Labors  in  the  Field  of  Politics 26 


PART    SECOND. 

IN    CONGRESS. 

Elected  to  Congress  in  1846 27 

Statesmen  in  the  Thirtieth  Congress 27 

His  Votes  in  Favor  of  Harbor  and  River  Improvements 28, 29 

Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia 28,  32,  42 

His  Resolutions  on  the  Mexican  War 29 

Vote  of  Supplies  for  the  War 33 

Putnam's  Resolution 34 

The  Ten-Regiment  Bill 36 

The  Tariff 36,42 

Slavery  in  the  Territories 36 

Webster's  Speech  on '37 

Mr.  Corwin's  Jlemarks  on 39 

Mr.  LincolnVCourse  on 41 

New-Mexico  and  California 42 

The  Gott  Resolution 48' 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

Public  Lands 46 

The  Slave  Case  of  Antonio  Pacheco 47 

Lincoln's  Amendment  to  Gott's  Resolution 57 

Favors  a  Bill  to  Abolish  the  Franking  Privilege GO 

Ten  Years  at  Home 61 

A  Member  of  the  National  Whig  Convention  of  1848 61 

The  Illinois  Campaign  of  1854 62 

Debate  with  Douglas  in  1864 62-69 

Declines  Election  to  the  United  States  Senate,  in  favor  of  Trumbull 67 

Declines  a  Nomination  for  Governor  of  Illinois 69 


PART    THIRD. 

THE  GREAT  SENATORIAL  CONTEST. 

Rebellion  of  Douglas .-.' 70 

Linceln  Nominated  for  United  States  Senator 71 

The  Illinois  Platform 71 

Lincoln  and  Douglas  Correspondence 74,  77 

Debates  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas 79 

The  Philadelphia  North  American  on 82 

Mr.  Greeley's  Remarks  on 83,  99 

Senator  Benjamin's  Opinion  of 84 

Extracts  from  Speeches  of  Lincoln  and  Douglas 85,  99 

Statistics  of  the  Illinois  Election  of  1858 100,  102 

Lincoln's  Visit  to  Kansas  in  1859 102 

Extract  from  his  Speech  at  Leavenworth 103 

His  Personal  Appearance 104,  106 

His  Personal  Habits 105 

Anecdotes  of  Him 107,  116 

Almost  a  Duel 108 

The  Rail-Splitter 109 

A  Thrilling  Episode  in  his  History 110 

His  Opinion  on  Naturalization 116 


PART    FOURTH. 

THE    CONVENTION    AND    ITS    NOMINATIONS. 

Organization  at  the  "  Wigwam" 118 

The  Platform  of  the  Republican  Party 120 

The  Ballots 128 

The,  Nomination 129 

Ratification  by  the  People 132 

Unanimous  Commendations  of  the  Press 135-139 

Mr.  Lincoln  at  Home 139 

Vi.sk  of  the  Committee  to  Notify  him  of  his  Nomination 139-146 

Mrs.  Lincoln 144,  147 

A  Campaign  Song , 148 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

PART   FIFTH. 

SPEECHES. 

Speech  delivered  at  the  Republican  State  Convention,  at  Springfield,  Juno 

17,1858 153 

in  Reply  to  Mr.  Douglas,  at  Chicago,  July  10, 1858 161 

at  Springfield,  July  17,  1858 180 

at  Galesburgh,  October  7,  1858 198 

at  Quincy,  October  13,  1858 217 

in  Reply"  to  Mr.  Douglas,  at  Alton,  October  15,  1858 230 

at  Columbus,  Ohio,  September,  1859 253 

at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September,  1859   281 

at  the  Cooper  Institute,  New- York,  February  27,  1860 306 

on  the  War  with  Mexico,  in  Congress,  January  12,  1848 326 

on  Internal  Improvements,  in  Congress,  June  20,  1848 336 


Sketch  of  the  life  of  Hon.  HANNIBAL  HAMLIN,  Republican  Candidate  for 

Vice-President  349 

Letters  of  Acceptance 355 


LIFE    AND    SPEECHES 


OF 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 


PAKT    FIKST. 

EARLY    HISTORY. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  was  born  February  12, 1809,  then 
in  Hardin,  now  in  the  recently  formed  county  of  La- 
rue,  Kentucky.  His  father,  Thomas,  and  grandfather, 
Abraham,  were  born  in  Kockingham  county,  Virginia, 
whither  their  ancestors  had  come  from  Berks  county, 
Pennsylvania.  His  lineage  has  been  traced  no  farther 
back  than  this.  The  family  were  originally  quakers, 
though  in  later  times  they  have  fallen  away  from  the 
peculiar  habits  of  that  people.  The  grandfather, 
Abraham,  had  four  brothers  ;  Isaac,  Jacob,  John,  and 
Thomas.  So  far  as  known,  the  descendants  of  Jacob 
and  John  are  still  in  Virginia.  Isaac  went  to  a  place 
near  where  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Tennessee, 
join,  and  his  descendants  are  in  that  region.  Thomas 
came  to  Kentucky,  and,  after  many  years,  died  there, 
whence  his  descendants  went  to  Missouri. 


16  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

Abraham,  grandfather  of  the  subject  of  this  sketch, 
came  to  Kentucky  and  was  killed  by  Indians,  about 
the  year  1784.  He  left  a  widow,  three  sons,  and  two 
daughters.  The  eldest  son,  Mordecai,  remained  in 
Kentucky  till  late  in  life,  when  he  removed  to  Han 
cock  county,  Illinois,  where,  soon  after,  he  died,  and 
where  several  of  his  descendants  still  reside. 

The  second  son,  Joseph,  removed  at  an  early  day 
to  a  place  on  Blue  river,  now  within  Harrison  county, 
Indiana,  but  no  recent  information  of  him  or  his  fam 
ily  has  been  obtained.  The  eldest  sister,  Mary,  mar 
ried  Ralph  Grume,  and  some  of  her  descendants  are 
now  known  to  be  in  Breckenridge  county,  Kentucky. 
The  second  sister,  Nancy,  married  Wm.  Brumfield, 
and  her  family  are  not  known  to  have  left  Kentucky, 
but  there  is  no  recent  information  from  them.  Thom 
as,  the  youngest  son,  and  father  of  the  present  subject, 
by  the  early  death  of  his  father,  and  very  narrow  cir 
cumstances  of  his  mother,  even  in  childhood,  was  a 
wandering,  laboring  boy,  and  grew  up  literally  without 
education.  He  never  did  more  in  the  way  of  writing, 
than  to  bunglingly  sign  his  own  name.  Before  he  was 
grown,  he  passed  one  year  as  a  hired  hand  with  his 
Uncle  Isaac,  on  Wataga,  a  branch  of  the  Holston 
river. 

Getting  back  into  Kentucky,  and  having  reached 
his  twenty-eighth  year,  he  married  Nancy  Hanks, 
mother  of  the  present  subject,  in  the  year  1806.  She 
was  also  born  in  Virginia,  and  relatives  of  hers, 
of  the  name  of  Hanks,  and  of  other  names,  now  reside 
in  Coles,  Macon,  and  Adams  counties,  Illinois,  and 
also  in  Iowa. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  17 

The  present  subject  has  no  brother  or  sister  of  the 
whole  or  half  blood  ;  he  had  a  sister,  older  than  him 
self,  who  was  grown  and  married,  but  died  many  years 
ago,  leaving  no  child  ;  also  a  brother,  younger  than 
himself,  who  died  in  infancy.  Before  leaving  Ken 
tucky,  he  and  his  sister  were  sent,  for  short  periods,  to 
A-B-C  schools  ;  the  first,  kept  by  Zachariah  Kiney, 
and  the  second  by  Caleb  Hazel.  At  this  time  his 
father  resided  on  Knob  creek,  on  the  road  from  Beards- 
town,  Ky.,  to  Nashville,  Tenn.,at  a  point  three  or  three 
and  a  half  miles  south  or  southwest  of  Atherton  ferry, 
on  the  Kollirig  Fork.  From  this  place  he  removed  to 
what  is  now  Spencer  county,  Indiana,  in  the  autumn 
of  1816,  Abraham  then  being  in  his  eighth  year.  This 
removal  was  partly  on  account  of  slavery,  but  chiefly 
on  account  of  the  difficulty  in  land- titles  in  Kentucky, 
he  settled  in  an  unbioken  forest,  and  the  clearing 
away  of  the  surplus  wood  was  the  great  task  ahead. 
Abraham,  though  very  young,  was  large  of  his  age, 
and  had  an  axe  put  into  his  hands  at  once,  and  from 
that  time  till  within  his  twenty- third  year,  he  was  almost 
constantly  handling  that  most  useful  instrument,  less, 
of  course,  in  ploughing  and  harvesting  seasons.  At  this 
place  Abraham  took  an  early  start  as  a  hunter,  which 
was  never  much  improved  afterward.  A  few  days  be 
fore  the  completion  of  his  eighth  year,  in  the  absence 
of  his  father,  a  flock  of  wild  turkeys  approached  the 
log-cabin,  and  Abraham  with  a  rifle-gun,  standing  in 
side,  shot  through  a  crack  and  killed  one  of  them.  He 
has  never  since  pulled  a  trigger  on  any  larger  game. 
In  the  autumn  of  1818,  his  mother  died,  and  a  year 
afterward  his  father  married  Mrs.  Sally  Johnston,  at 


18  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OP 

Elizabethtown,  Kentucky,  a  widow  with  three  children 
of  her  first  marriage.  She  proved  a  good  and  kind 
mother  to  Abraham,  and  is  still  living  in  Coles  county,: 
Illinois.  There  were  no  children  of  this  second  mar 
riage.  His  father's  residence  continued  at  the  same 
place,  in  Indiana,  till  1830. 

While   here,   Abraham   went   to   A-B-C    schools, 

kept  successively  by  Andrew   Crawford, 

Sweeny,  and  Azel  W.  Dorsey,  he  does  not  remember 
any  other.  The  family  of  Mr.  Dorsey  now  reside  in 
Schuyler  county,  Illinois.  Mr.  Lincoln  now  thinks  the 
aggregate  of  all  his  schooling  did  not  amount  to  one 
year.  He  was  never  in  a  college  or  academy  as  a  stu 
dent,  and  never  inside  a  college  or  academy  till  since 
he  had  a  law-license.  What  he  has  in  the  way  of 
education  he  has  picked  up.  After  he  was  twenty- 
three,  and  had  separated  from  his  father,  he  studied 
English  grammar,  imperfectly,  of  course,  but  so  as  to 
speak  and  write  as  well  as  he  now  does.  He  studied, 
and  nearly  mastered,  the  six  books  of  Euclid  since 
he  was  a  member  of  Congress.  He  regrets  his  limited 
means  of  education,  and  does  what  he  can  to  supply 
the  want  of  early  opportunities. 

.  When  he  was  nineteen,  still  residing  in  Indiana,  he 
made  his  first  trip  upon  a  flatboat  to  New-Orleans. 
He  was  a  hired  hand,  merely,  and  he  and  a  son  of  the 
owner,  without  other  assistance,  made  the  trip.  The 
nature  of  part  of  the  cargo-load,  as  it  was  called,  made 
it  necessary  for  them  to  linger  and  trade  along  the 
sugar  coast,  and  one  night  they  were  attacked  by 
seven  negroes  with  intent  to  kill  and  rob  them.  They 
were  hurt  some  in  the  melee,  but  succeeded  in  driving 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  19 

the  negroes  from  the  boat,  and  then  "  weighed  anchor" 
and  left. 

March  1st,  1830,  young  Lincoln  having  just  com 
pleted  his  21st  year,  his  father  and  family,  with  the  fam 
ilies  of  the  two  daughters  and  sons-in-law  of  his  step 
mother,  left  the  old  homestead  in  Indiana  and  came  to 
Illinois  ;  their  mode  of  conveyance  were  wagons  drawn 
by  ox  teams.  They  reached  the  county  of  Macon,  and 
stopped  there  some  time.  Within  the  same  month  of 
March  his  father  and  family  settled  a  new  place  on  the 
north  side  of  the  Sangamon  river,  at  the  junction  of 
the  timberland  and  prairie,  about  ten  miles  westerly 
from  Decatur  ;  here  they  built  a  log-cabin,  into  which 
they  removed,  and  made  enough  rails  to  fence  ten  acres 
of  ground,  fenced  and  broke  the  ground,  and  raised  a 
crop  of  sod  corn  upon  it  the  same  year.  These  are,  or 
are  supposed  to  be,  the  rails  about  which  so  much  is 
being  said  just  now,  though  they  are  far  from  being 
the  first  or  only  rails  ever  made  by  him.  The  sons- 
in-law  were  temporarily  settled  at  other  places  in 
the  county.  In  the  autumn  all  hands  were  greatly 
afflicted  with  ague  and  fever,  to  which  they  had  not 
been  used,  and  by  which  they  were  greatly  discouraged, 
so  much  so  that  they  determined  on  leaving  the  county. 
They  remained,  however,  through  the  succeeding  win 
ter,  which  was  the  winter  of  the  very  celebrated  "  deep 
snow"  of  Illinois.  During  that  winter  young  Lincoln, 
together  with  his  step-mother's  son,  John  D.  Johnston, 
and  John  Hanks,  yet  residing  in  Macon  county,  hired 
themselves  to  one  Denton  Offult  to  take  a  flat-boat 
from  Beardstown,  Illinois,  to  New-Orleans,  and  for 
that  purpose  were  to  join  him — Offult — at  Springfield, 


20  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

9 

Illinois,  as  soon  as  the  snow  should  go  off ;  when  it 
did  go  off,  which  was  about  the  1st  of  March,  1831, 
the  country  was  so  flooded  as  to  make  travelling  by 
land  impracticable  ;  to  obviate  which  difficulty  they 
purchased  a  large  canoe,  and  came  down  the  Sanga- 
mon  river  in  it.  This  is  the  time  and  manner  of  Lin 
coln's  first  entrance  into  Sangamon  county.  They 
found  Offult  at  Springfield,  but  learned  from  him  that 
he  had  failed  in  getting  a  boat ;  this  led  to  their  hiring 
themselves  to  him  at  $12  per  month,  each,  and  getting 
the  timber  out  of  the  trees,  and  building  a  boat,  at 
old  Sangamon  town,  on  the  Sangamon  river,  seven 
miles  northwest  of  Springfield,  which  boat  they  took 
to  New-Orleans  substantially  on  the  old  contract. 
During  this  boat  enterprise  and  acquaintance  with 
Offult,  who  was  previously  an  entire  stranger,  Offult 
conceived  a  liking  for  Lincoln,  and  believing  he  could 
turn  him  to  account,  he  contracted  with  him  to  act  as 
clerk  for  him  on  his  return  from  New-Orleans  in  charge 
of  a  store  and  mill  at  New- Salem,  then  in  Sangamon, 
now  in  Menard  county.  Hanks  had  not  gone  to  New- 
Orleans,  but  having  a  family,  and  being  likely  to  be 
detained  from  home  longer  than  at  first  expected,  had 
turned  back  from  St.  Louis  ;  he  is  the  same  John 
Hanks  who  now  engineers  the  "  Kail  Enterprise"  at 
Decatur,  and  is  a  first  cousin  to  Abraham's  mother. 
Abraham's  father,  with  his  own  family  and  others 
mentioned,  had,  in  pursuance  of  their  intention,  re 
moved  from  Macon  to  Coles  county.  Jno.  D.  John 
ston,  the  step-mother's  son,  went  to  them,  and 
Lincoln  stopped  indefinitely,  and  for  the  first  time 
by  himself,  at  New-Salem,  before  mentioned.  This 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  21 

was  in  July,  1831.  Here  he  rapidly  made  acquain 
tances  and  friends.  In  less  than  a  year  Offult's  busi 
ness  was  falling  off — had  almost  failed.  When  the 
Black-Hawk  war  of  1832  broke  out,  young  Lincoln 
joined  a  volunteer  company,  and  to  his  own  surprise 
was  elected  captain  of  it.  He  says  he  has  not  since 
had  any  success  in  life  which  gave  him  so  much  satis 
faction.  He  went  through  the  campaign  ;  served  near 
three  months  ;  met  the  ordinary  hardships  of  such  an 
expedition,  but  was  in  no  battle.  He  now  owns  in 
Iowa  the  land  upon  which  his  own  warrants  for  this 
service  were  located. 

Keturning  from  the  campaign,  and  encouraged  by 
his  great  popularity  among  his  immediate  neighbors, 
he  the  same  year  ran  for  the  legislature  and  was  beaten, 
his  own  precinct,  however,  casting  its  votes  277  for, 
and  7  against  him,  and  this,  too,  when  he  was  an 
avowed  Clay  man,  and  the  precinct  the  autumn  after 
ward,  giving  a  majority  of  115  for  General  Jackson, 
over  Mr.  Clay.  This  was  the  only  time  Lincoln  was 
ever  beaten  in  a  direct  vote  of  the  people.  He  was 
now  without  means  and  out  of  business,  but  was 
anxious  to  remain  with  his  friends,  who  had  treated 
him  with  so  much  generosity.  It  was  some  time  before 
he  decided  upon  a  profession — first,  a  trade,  then  a 
farmer,  then  the  law — the  latter  would  have  been  his 
choice  at  that  time,  but  for  his  limited  education.  Be 
fore  long,  strangely  enough,  a  man  offered  to  sell,  and 
did  sell  to  him,  and  another  as  poor  as  himself,  an 
old  stock  of  goods  upon  credit.  They  opened  as  mer 
chants,  and  he  says  that  was  THE  store.  Of  course 
they  did  nothing  but  get  deeper  and  deeper  in  debt. 


22  LIFB    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

He  was  appointed  postmaster  at  New- Salem — the  office 
being  too  insignificant  to  make  his  politics  an  objec 
tion.  The  store  "  winked  out." 

Nothing  daunted  by  this  turn  of  ill-luck,  he  directed 
his  attention  to  law,  and  borrowing  a  few  books  from 
a  neighbor,  which  he  took  from  the  office  in  the  even 
ing  and  returned  in  the  morning,  he  learned  the  rudi 
ments  of  the  profession  in  which  he  has  since  become 
so  distinguished. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  in  his  youth  known  as  the  swiftest 
runner,  the  best  jumper,  and  the  strongest  wrestler, 
among  his  fellows  ;  and  when  he  reached  manhood,  and 
his  physical  frame  became  developed,  the  early  settlers 
pronounced  him  the  stoutest  man  in  the  State.  His 
abstemious  habits  and  his  hardy  physcial  discipline 
strengthened  his  constitution  and  gave  vigor  to  his 
mind.  He  improved  every  opportunity  to  cultivate  his 
intellect,  often  studying  his  law-books  far  into  the 
night  by  the  reflection  of  the  log-fire  in  his  farm-home 
on  the  prairies.  He  was  early  distinguished  for  a  dis- 
putational  turn  of  mind,  and  many  are  the  intellectual 
triumphs  of  his  in  the  country  or  village  lyceum  select 
ed  by  old  settlers  who  remember  him  as  he  then 
appeared.  His  strong,  natural,  direct,  and  irresistible 
logic  marked  him  there  as  it  has  ever  since,  as  an  in 
tellectual  king. 

The  deep  snow  which  occurred  in  the  winter  of 
1S30-'31,  was  one  of  the  chief  troubles  endured  by  the 
early  settlers  of  Central  and  Southern  Illinois.  Its 
consequences  lasted  through  several  years.  The  peo 
ple  were  illy  prepared  to  meet  it,  as  the  weather  had 
been  mild  and  pleasant  —  unprecedently  so  up  to 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  23 

Christmas — when  a  snow-storm  set  in,  which  lasted  two 
days  ;  something  never  before  known  even  among  the 
traditions  of  the  Indians,  and  never  approached  in  the 
weather  of  any  winter  since.  The  pioneers  who  came 
into  the  State  (then  a  territory)  in  1800,  some  of 
whom  are  still  living,  say  the  average  depth  of  snow 
was  never,  previous  to  1830,  more  then  knee  deep  to 
an  ordinary  man,  while  it  was  breast  high  all  that  winter, 
not  in  drifts  but  over  a  whole  section.  "  For  three 
months,"  say  the  old  settlers,  "  there  was  not  a  warm 
sun  upon  the  surface  of  the  snow."  It  became  crusted 
over,  so  as  (in  some  cases)  to  bear  teams.  Cattle  and 
horses  perished,  the  winter  wheat  was  killed,  the  mea 
gre  stocks  of  provisions  ran  out,  and  the  most  wealthy 
settlers  came  near  starving,  while  some  of  the  poorer 
ones  actually  did.  It  was  in  the  midst  of  such  scenes 
that  young  Abraham  Lincoln  attained  his  majority,  and 
commenced  his  career  of  bold  and  manly  independence. 
It  was  this  discipline  that  was  to  try  the  soul  of  the 
future  President.  Communication  between  house  and 
house  was  often  entirely  obstructed  for  teams,  so  that 
the  young  and  strong  men  had  to  do  all  the  travelling 
on  foot ;  carrying  from  one  neighbor  what  of  his  store 
he  could  spare  to  another,  and  bringing  back  some 
thing  in  return  sorely  needed.  Men  living  five,  ten, 
twenty,  and  thirty  miles  apart  were  called  "  neighbors" 
then.  Young  Lincoln  was  always  ready  to  perform 
these  acts  of  humanity,  and  foremost  in  the  counsels 
of  the  settlers  when  their  troubles  seemed  gathering 
like  a  thick  cloud  about  them. 

The  surveyor  of  Sangamon  offered  to  depute  to  Lin 
coln  that  portion  of  his  work  which  was  in  his  part  of 


24  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

the  county.  He  accepted,  procured  a  compass  and 
chain,  studied  Flint  and  Gibson  a  little,  and  went  at 
it.  This  procured  bread,  and  kept  soul  and  body  to 
gether.  The  election  of  1834  came,  and"  he  was  then 
elected  to  the  legislature  by  the  highest  vote  cast  for 
any  candidate.  Major  John  F.  Stuart,  then  in  full 
practice  of  the  law,  was  also  elected.  When  the  legis 
lature  met,  the  law  books  were  dropped,  but  were 
taken  up  again  at  the  end  of  the  session.  He  was 
re-elected  in  1836, 1838,  and  1840.  In  the  autumn  of 
1836  he  obtained  a  law  license,  and  April  15,  1837, 
he  removed  to  Springfield  and  commenced  the  prac 
tice,  his  old  friend,  Stuart,  taking  him  into  partner 
ship. 

•  March  3d,  1837,  by  a  protest  entered  upon  the  Il 
linois  house  journal  of  that  date,  at  pages  817,  818, 
Lincoln,  with  Dan  Stone,  another  representative  of 
Sangamon,  briefly  defined  his  position  on  the  slavery 
question,  as  follows.  We  quote  from  the  State  Jour 
nal : 

"  In  1836-'7,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  one  of  the  represen 
tatives  in  the  Legislature  from  Sangamon  county,  and 
during  the  session,  as  usual,  resolutions,  taking  an  ex 
treme  Southern  view  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  were 
brought  forward,  discussed,  and  finally  adopted.  Mr. 
Lincoln  refused  to  vote  for  them  ;  but  took  advantage 
of  the  constitutional  privilege  allowing  any  two  mem 
bers  to  enter  their  protest  upon  the  journals  of  the 
house,  to  give  his  views  on  the  subject  in  the  form  of 
a  protest.  The  paper  is  worthy  of  being  produced  at 
the  present  time,  and  we  give  it,  as  follows  : 

"  MARCH  3d,  1837. 

1  The  following  protest  was  presented  to  the  house, 
which  was  read  and  ordered  to  be  spread  on  the  jour 
nal,  to  wit  : 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  25 

"Resolutions  upon  the  subject  of  domestic  slavery 
having  passed  both  branches  of  the  general  assembly, 
at  its  present  session,  the  undersigned  hereby  protest 
against  the  passage  of  the  same. 

"  They  believe  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is  founded 
on  both  injustice  and  bad  policy  ;  but  that  the  pro 
mulgation  of  abolition  doctrines  tends  rather  to  in 
crease  than  abate  its  evils. 

"  They  believe  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
has  no  power,  under  the  Constitution,  to  interfere  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  different  States. 

"  They  believe  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  has  the  power,  under  the  Constitution,  to  abol 
ish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  but  that  the 
power  ought  not  to  be  exercised  unless  at  the  request 
of  the  people  of  said  district. 

"  The  difference  between  these  opinions  and  those 
contained  in  the  said  resolutions,  is  their  reason  for 
entering  this  protest. 

"  DAN  STONE, 
"A.  LINCOLN, 
"  Representatives  from  the  county'of  Sangamon." 

Business  flowed  in  upon  him,  and  he  rose  rapidly  to 
distinction  in  his  profession.  He  displayed  remarkable 
ability  as  an  advocate  in  jury  trials,  and  many  of  his 
law  arguments  were  master-pieces  of  logical  reasoning. 
There  was  no  refined  artificiality  in  his  forensic  efforts. 
They  all  bore  the  stamp  of  masculine  common  sense  ; 
and  he  had  a  natural,  easy  mode  of  illustration,  that 
made  the  most  abstruse  subjects  appear  plain.  His 
success  at  the  bar,  however,  did  not  withdraw  his  at 
tention  from  politics.  For  many  years  he  was  the 
c  wheel-horse*  of  the  Whig  party  of  Illinois,  and  was 
on  the  electoral  ticket  in  several  Presidential  cam 
paigns.  At  such  time  he  canvassed  the  State  with  his 

2 


26  LIFEAND     SPEECHES     OF 

usual  vigor  and  ability.  He  was  an  ardent  friend  of 
Henry  Clay,  and  exerted  himself  powerfully  in  his  be 
half,  in  1844,  traversing  the  entire  State  of  Illinois,  and 
addressing  public  meetings  daily  until  near  the  close 
of  the  campaign,  when,  becoming  convinced  that 
his  labors  in  that  field  would  be  unavailing,  he 
crossed  over  into  Indiana,  and  continued  his  efforts  up 
to  the  day  of  election.  The  contest  of  that  year 
in  Illinois  was  mainly  on  the  tariff  question.  Mr. 
Lincoln,  on  the  Whig  side,  and  John  Calhoun 
on  the  democratic  side,  were  the  heads  of  the  op 
posing  electoral  tickets.  Calhoun,  late  of  Nebraska, 
now  dead,  was  then  in  the  full  vigor  of  his  powers,  and 
was  accounted  the  ablest  debater  of  his  party.  They 
stumped  the  State  together,  or  nearly  so,  making 
speeches  usually  on  alternate  days  at  each  place,  and 
each  addressing  large  audiences  at  great  length,  some 
times  four  hours  together.  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  these  elab 
orate  speeches,  evinced  a  thorough  mastery  of  the 
principles  of  political  economy  which  underlie  the  tariff 
question,  and  presented  arguments  in  favor  of  the  pro 
tective  policy  with  a  power  and  conclusiveness  rarely 
equalled,  and  at  the  same  time  in  a  manner  so  lucid 
and  familiar,  and  so  well  interspersed  with  happy  il 
lustrations  and  apposite  anecdotes,  as  to  establish  a 
reputation  which  he  has  never  since  failed  to  maintain, 
as  the  ablest  leader  in  the  Whig  and  Kepublican  ranks 
in  the  great  West. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  27 


PAKT    SECOND. 

IN    CONGRESS. 

IN  1846,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  elected  to  Congress  from 
the  central  district  of  Illinois. 

He  took  his  seat  in  Congress  on  the  first  Monday  in 
December,  of  the  year  1847.  It  was  the  Thirtieth 
Congress,  and  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  to  which 
he  was  elected  was  presided  over  by  Mr.  Winthrop  of 
Massachusetts.  The  House  was  composed  of  117 
Whigs,  110  Democrats,  and  1  Native  American.  Illi 
nois  then  had  seven  representatives,  and  all  were  Dem 
ocrats  but  Mr.  Lincoln.  He  alone  from  that  State  held 
up  the  old  Whig  banner.  With  him,  from  other 
States,  were  associated  such  well-known  names  as  the 
following  :  Collamer,  Marsh,  Ashmun,  Truman  Smith, 
Hunt,  Tallmadge,  Ingersoll,  Botts,  Goggin,  Cling- 
:iian,  Stephens,  Toombs,  Gentry,  and  Thompson.  Op- 
>osed  to  him  in  politics  were  men  like  Wilmot,  Brod- 
head,  Boyd,  Bocock,  Khett,  Brown*  Linn  Boyd,  Andrew 
Johnson,  etc.,  etc.  In  the  Senate  were  Webster,  Cal- 
houn,  Dayton,  Davis,  Dix,  Dickinson,  Hunter,  Hale, 
Bjll,  Crittenden,  and  Corwin.  It  was  a  Congress  full 
of  the  most  talented  men — crowded  with  the  real  states- 
!nen  of  the  country,  and  such  a  one  in  these  and  other 
respects  as  the  country  rarely  elects  to  make  its  laws. 
t  turned  out  to  be  one  of  the  most  .excited,  agitated, 
and  agitating  ever  convened. 


28  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

HARBOR    AND    RIVER    BILL. 

One  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  votes  was  given,  Decem 
ber  20,  1847,  in  favor  of  the  subjoined  resolution  : 

"  Resolved,  That  if,  in  the  judgment  of  Congress,  it  be 
necessary  to  improve  the  navigation  of  a  river  to  expe 
dite  and  render  secure  the  movements  of  our  army,  and 
save  from  delay  and  loss  our  arms  and  munitions  of 
war,  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  improve  such 
river. 

"  Resolved,  That  if  it  be  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  the  lives  of  our  seamen,  repairs,  safety,  or  main 
tenance  of  our  vessels-of-war,  to  improve  a  harbor  or 
inlet,  either  on  our  Atlantic  or  Lake  coast,  Congress 
has  the  power  to  make  such  improvement/' 

A  motion  was  made  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  ta 
ble,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  with  the  other  Whigs  then 
in  the  House  against  the  motion,  and  it  was  de 
feated.  The  resolution  was  laid  over  after  this  test 
vote  to  another  day  for  debate. 

SLAVERY    IN    THE    DISTRICT    OF    COLUMBIA. 

The  next  day  the  slavery  question  was  agitated  in 
the  House.  Mr.  Giddings  presented  a  memorial  from 
certain  citizens  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  asking 
Congress  to  repeal  all  laws  upholding  the  slave-trade 
in  the  district.  Mr.  Giddings  moved  to  refer  the  me 
morial  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  with  instructions 
to  inquire  into  the  constitutionality  of  all  laws  by  which 
slaves  are  held  as  property  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
A  motion  was  made  to  lay  the  paper  on  the  table.  Mr. 
Lincoln  voted  against  the  motion.  The  result  was  a 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  29 

tie  vote,  and  the  Speaker  voted  in  the  negative.  Mr, 
Ho  well  Cobb  stated  that  he  wished  to  debate  it,  and  it 
lay  over  under  the  rules. 

On  the  22d  of  December,  Mr.  Wentworth  of  Illinois 
moved  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  General  Government  has  the 
power  to  construct  such  harbors,  and  improve  such 
rivers  as  are  necessary  and  proper  for  the  protection  of 
our  navy  and  commerce,  and  also  for  the  defences  of 
our  country." 

A  motion  was  made  to  lay  on  the  table,  and  then 
withdrawn.  An  exciting  contest  ensued  on  the  de 
mand  for  the  previous  question.  It  was  sustained,  and 
the  House  came  to  a  direct  vote  on  the  resolution, 
passing  it  by  138  ayes  to  54  nays,  Mr.  Lincoln  voting, 
of  course,  with  the  ayes. 

THE    MEXICAN    WAR. 

On  the  same  day  Mr.  Lincoln  offered  the  following 
preamble  and  resolutions  on  the  Mexican  War  : 

"Whereas,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in 
his  Message  of  May  11,  1846,  has  declared  that  '  the 
Mexican  government  refused  to  receive  him  [the  envoy 
of  the  United  States],  or  listen  to  his  propositions,  but, 
after  a  long-continued  series  of  menaces,  have  at  last 
invaded  our  territory,  and  shed  the  blood  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  on  our  own  soil  ;' 

"  And  again,  in  his  Message  of  December  8,  1846, 
that  '  we  had  ample  cause  of  war  against  Mexico  long 
before  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities  ;  but  even  then 
we  forbore  to  take  redress  into  our  own  hands  until 
Mexico  basely  became  the  aggressor,  by  invading  our 


30  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

soil  in  hostile  array,  and  shedding  the  blood  of  our 
citizens  ;' 

"And  yet,  again,  in  his  Message  of  December  7, 1847, 
i  The  Mexican  government  refused  even  to  hear  the 
terms  of  adjustment  which  he  (our  minister  of  peace) 
was  authorized  to  propose,  and  finally,  under  wholly 
unjustifiable  pretexts,  involved  the  two  countries  in 
war,  by  invading  the  territory  of  the  State  of  Texas, 
striking  the  first  blow,  and  shedding  the  blood  of  our 
citizens  on  our  own  soil;' 

"  And  whereas,  this  House  is  desirous  to  obtain  a 
full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts  which  go  to  establish 
whether  the  particular  spot  on  which  the  blood  of  our 
citizens  was  so  shed,  was  or  was  not,  at  that  time,  our 
own  soil :  Therefore, 

"Resolved,  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  That 
the  President  of  the  United  States  be  respectfully  re 
quested  to  inform  this  House — 

"  1st.  Whether  the  spot  on  which  the  blood  of  our 
citizens  was  shed,  as  in  his  memorial  declared,  was  or 
was  not  within  the  territory  of  Spain,  at  least  after  the 
treaty  of  1819,  until  the  Mexican  revolution. 

"  2d.  Whether  that  spot  is  or  is  not  within  the  ter 
ritory  which  was  wrested  from  Spain  by  the  revolution 
ary  government  of  Mexico. 

"  3d.  Whether  that  spot  is  or  is  not  within  a  settle 
ment  of  people,  which  settlement  has  existed  ever  since 
long  before  the  Texas  [Revolution,  and  until  its  inhabi 
tants  fled  before  the  approach  of  the  United  States 
army. 

"  4th.  Whether  that  settlement  is  or  is  not  isolated 
from  any  and  all  other  settlements  of  the  Gulf  and  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  31 

Kio  Grande  on  the  south  and  west,  and  of  wide  unin 
habited  regions  on  the  north  and  east. 

"  5th.  Whether  the  people  of  that  settlement,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  have  ever  submitted  themselves  to 
the  government  or  laws  of  Texas  or  of  the  United 
States,  of  consent  or  of  compulsion,  either  of  accept 
ing  office  or  voting  at  elections,  or  paying  taxes,  or 
serving  on  juries,  or  having  process  served  on  them, 
or  in  any  other  way. 

"  6th.  Whether  the  people  of  that  settlement  did  or 
did  not  flee  at  the  approaching  of  the  United  States 
army,  leaving  unprotected  their  homes  and  their  grow 
ing  crops  before  the  blood  was  shed,  as  in  the  message 
stated  ;  and  whether  the  first  blood  so  shed  was  or  was 
not  shed  within  the  enclosure  of  one  of  the  people  who 
had  thus  fled  from  it. 

"  7th.  Whether  our  citizens  whose  blood  was  shed, 
as  in  his  message  declared,  were  or  were  not,  at  that 
time,  armed  officers  and  soldiers  sent  into  that  settle 
ment  by  the  military  order  of  the  President,  through 
the  Secretary  of  War. 

"8th.  Whether  the  military  force  of  the  United 
States  was  or  was  not  so  sent  into  that  settlement  after 
General  Taylor  had  more  than  once  intimated  to  the 
War  Department  that,  in  his  opinion,  no  such  move 
ment  was  necessary  to  the  defence  or  protection  of 
Texas/7 

These  resolutions  were  laid  over  under  the  rule.  We 
have  quoted  them  entire  because  one  of  the  false  charges 
of  Mr.  Lincoln's  political  opponents  is,  that  he  voted 
against  the  supplies  to  the  army.  He  was  a  Whig, 
and  took  the  position  of  the  Whigs  of  his  day,  many 


32  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

eminent  Southern  men  included,  which  was  opposition 
to  the  declaration  of  war  with  Mexico,  by  the  Presi 
dent,  so  long  as  that  opposition  would  accomplish  any 
purpose,  which  it  would  not  when  Mr.  Lincoln  was  in 
Congress  ;  and  always,  as  these  resolutions  of  his  prove, 
objected  to  what  he  considered  a  false  statement  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  difficulties.  No  circumstances,  in  his 
opinion,  would  justify  falsehood  in  reference  to  the 
history  of  that  or  any  other  war,  and  so  he  on  every 
proper  occasion  criticised  the  language  of  the  President, 
which  repeatedly  declared  that  the  war  was  begun  by 
the  act  of  Mexico. 

SLAVERY    AGAIN. 

On  the  28th  of  December  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  to 
sustain  the  right  of  petition.  Several  citizens  of 
Indiana  petitioned  Congress  for  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  Mr.  C.  B.  Smith 
moved  to  refer  the  petition  to  the  Committee  on  the 
District.  Mr.  Cabell  moved  to  lay  the  memorial  upon 
the  table,  which  motion  was  carried,  Mr.  Lincoln  voting 
against  it  and  in  favor  of  according  to  it  a  respectful 
consideration. 

On  the  30th  of  December,  a  similar  memorial  against 
the  slave-trade  was  presented  to  the  House,  and  on  a 
motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  again 
in  the  negative. 

January  17, 1848,  Mr.  Giddings  introduced  a  resolu 
tion  in  the  House,  reporting  certain  alleged  outrages 
against  a  colored  man  in  the  District,  and  calling  upon 
the  Speaker  to  appoint  a  select  committee  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  repealing  such  acts  of  Congress 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  33 

as  sustained  or  authorized  tlie  slave-trade  in  the  Dis 
trict.  The  resolution  caused  considerable  excitement, 
and  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  made  and  lost  by 
one  vote.  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  against  the  motion.  The 
resolution  was  now  before  the  House,  but  the  previous 
question  was  pending.  Questions  of  order  arose  and 
the  House  was  in  great  confusion.  Mr.  Giddings 
claimed  the  right  to  modify  his  resolution,  and  the 
Speaker  decided  that  he  had  that  right.  Mr.  Ste 
phens,  of  Georgia,  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the 
Chair.  In  answer  to  a  question,  the  Chair  stated  that 
if  the  resolution  was  modified,  a  second  motion  to  lay 
«n  the  table  would  be  in  order,  whereupon  Mr.  Stephens 
withdrew  his  appeal.  Mr.  Giddings  modified  his  reso 
lution,  and  it  was  again  moved  that  it  be  laid  on  the 
table.  This  time  the  motion  was  successful — ayes  94, 
nays  88 — Mr.  Lincoln  voting  no. 

VOTE    OF    SUPPLIES   FOR    THE    WAR. 

On  the  17th  of  February,  Mr.  Lincoln  gave  a  vote 
which  effectually  destroys  the  assertio"n  of  some  of  his 
political  enemies  of  this  day,  that  he  voted  against  the 
supplies  for  the  war  in  Mexico.  The  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  reported  a  Loan  Bill  to  raise  the 
sum  of  sixteen  millions  of  dollars  to  enable  the  gov 
ernment  to  provide  for  its  debts,  principally  incurred 
in  Mexico.  This  bill  passed  a  Whig  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  ;  ayes  192,  nays  14,  Mr.  Lincoln  voting  for 
the  bill.  This  vote  alone  disposes  of  the  slanderous 
charge  that  he  voted  against  the  supplies  because  of  the 
war  with  Mexico. 


2* 


34  LIFE  AND    SPEECHES   OF 

PUTNAM'S  RESOLUTION. 

On  the  28th  of  February  Mr.  Putnam  moved  the 
following  preamble  and  resolution  : 

"Whereas,  In  the  settlement  of  the  difficulties  pend 
ing  between  this  country  and  Mexico,  territory  may  be 
acquired  in  which  slavery  does  not  exist  ;  and  whereas, 
Congress,  in  the  organization  of  a  territorial  govern 
ment,  at  an  early  period  of  our  political  history,  estab 
lished  a  principle  worthy  of  imitation  in  all  future  time, 
forbidding  the  existence  of  slavery  in  free  territory  : 
Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  in  any  territory  which  may  be  ac 
quired  from  Mexico,  over  which  shall  be  established 
territorial  governments,  slavery  or  involuntary  servi 
tude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime,  whereof  the  par 
ty  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  should  be  forever  pro 
hibited  ;  and  that,  in  any  act  or  resolution  establishing 
such  governments,  a  fundamental  provision  ought  to  be 
inserted  to  that  effect/' 

Mr.  Putnam  moved  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Brodhead  moved  to  itay  the  resolution  on  the 
table. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  decided  by  yeas 
and  nays. 

After  the  roll  was  called  through,  Mr.  C.  J.  Inger- 
soll  rose  and  asked  leave  to  vote.  Mr.  I.  said  he  was 
not  within  the  bar  when  his  name  was  called,  but  came 
in  before  the  following  name  was  called.  Mr.  I.  said, 
if  allowed  to  vote,  he  would  vote  aye.  His  vote  was 
not  received. 

Mr.  Murphy  rose  and  said  he  was  not  within  the 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  35 

bar  when  his  name  was  called,  but  he  asked  leave  to 
vote.  It  being  objected  to — 

Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll  moved  to  suspend  the  rules,  to 
allow  Mr.  Murphy  and  himself  to  vote.  Disagreed  to. 

The  result  was  then  announced,  as  follows  : 

Yeas. — Messrs.  Green  Adams,  Atkinson,  Barringer,  Barrow,  Bayly. 
Bedinger,  Birdsall,  Black,  Bocock,  Bowdon,  Bowlin,  Boyd,  Boyden, 
Brodhead,  Charles  Brown,  Albert  G.  Brown,  Burt,  Cabell,  Cathcart, 
Chase,  Clapp,  Franklin  Clark,  Beverly  L.  Clark,  Clingman,  Howell  Cobb, 
Williamson  R.  W.  Cobb,  Cocke,  Crisfield,  Crozier,  Daniel,  Dickinson, 
Donnell,  Garnett  Duncan,  Featherston,  Ficklin,  French,  Fulton,  Gaines, 
Gayle,  Gentry,  Goggin,  Green,  Willard  P.  Hall,  Haralson,  Harris,  Has- 
kell,  Henley,  Hill,  Hilliard,  Isaac  E.  Holmes,  George  S.  Houston,  Inge, 
Iverson,  Jackson,  Jamieson,  Andrew  Johnson,  Robert  W.  Johnson,  Geo 
"W.  Jones,  John  W.  Jones,  Kaufman,  Kennon,  Tho.  Butler  King,  La 
Sere,  Levin,  Ligon,  Lord,  Lumpkin,  Maclay,  McClernand,  McKay, 
McLane,  Mann,  Miller,  Morehead,  Morse,  Outlaw,  Pendleton,  Pettit, 
Peyton,  Phelps,  Pilsbury,  Preston,  Richardson,  Richey,  Robinson, 
Roman,  Sawyer,  Shepperd,  Simpson,  Sims,  Robert  Smith,  Stanton,  Ste 
phens,  Thibodeaux,  Thomas,  Tompkins,  John  B.  Thompson,  Robert 
A  Thompson,  Toombs,  Turner,  Venable,  Wick,  Williams,  Wiley,  Wood 
ward — 105. 

Nays. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Ashmun,  Bingham,  Brady,  Butler,  Canby, 
Collamer,  Collins,  Conger,  Cranston,  "Crowell,  Cummins,  Dickey,  Dixon, 
Duer,  Daniel  Duncan,  Dunn,  Eckert,  Edwards,  Embree,  Nathan  Evans. 
Faran,  Farrelly,  Fisher,  Freedly,  Fries,  Giddings,  Gott,  Gregory,  GrinnelL 
Hale,  Nathan  K.  Hall,  Hammons,  James  G.  Hampton,  Moses  Hampton, 
Henry,  Elias  B.  Holmes,  John  W.  Houston,  Hubbard,  Hudson,  Hunt, 
Irvin,  Jenkins,  James  H.  Johnson,  Kellogg,  Daniel  P,  King,  Lahm,  Wil 
liam  T.  Lawrence,  Sidney  Lawrence.  Leffler,  LINCOLN,  McClelland, 
Mcllvaine,  Marsh,  Marvin,  Morris,  Mullin,  Nelson,  Nes,  Newell,  Pal 
frey,  Peaslee,  Peck,  Pollock,  Putnam,  Reynold,  Julius,  John  A.  Rock 
well,  Root,  Rumsey,  St.  John,  Schenck,  Sherrill,  Silvester,  Slingerland, 
Caleb  B.  Smith,  Truman  Smith,  Starkweather,  Andrew  Stewart,  Charles 
E.  Stuart,  Strohm,  Tallmadge,  Taylor,  Richard  W.  Thompson,  William 
Thompson,  Thurston,  Van  Dyke,  Vinton,  Warren,  Wentworth,  White, 
Wilmot,  Wilson— 92, 

So  the  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 
Mr.  Lincoln  voted  with  the  nays. 


86  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES    OF 

THE    TEN    REGIMENT    BILL. 

On  April  3d  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  to  suspend  the  rules 
tbaf  the  Ten  Kegiment  Bill  might  be  taken  up,  and 
again  did  the  same  on  the  18th  of  the  same  month. 

THE  TARIFF. 

June  19,  1848,  Mr.  Lincoln  put  himself  on  record  in 
favor  of  a  protective  tariff.  Mr.  Stewart  of  Penn.,  on 
that  day  moved  a  suspension  of  the  rules  to  enable  him 
to  offer  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Eesolved,  That  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  reporting 
a  bill  increasing  the  duties  on  foreign  luxuries  of  all 
kinds  and  on  such  foreign  manufactures  as  are  now 
coming  into  ruinous  competition  with  American  labor." 

Mr.  Lincoln  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES. 

On  the  28th  of  July,  ths  famous  bill  to  establish 
territorial  governments  for  Oregon,  California,  and 
New-Mexico,  was  taken  from  the  Speaker's  table  as  it 
came  from  the  Senate.  The  peculiar  feature  of  the 
bill  was  a  provision  in  reference  to  California  and  New- 
Mexico,  prohibiting  the  territorial  legislatures  from 
passing  laws  in  favor  or  against  slavery,  but  also  pro 
viding  that  all  the  laws  of  the  territorial  legislatures 
shall  be  subject  to  the  sanction  of  Congress.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  it  was  this  bill  which  Mr.  Webster, 
who  was  then  in  the  Senate,  opposed  in  a  great  speech  ; 
using  the  following  language  : 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  37 

"  We  stand  here  now — at  least  I  do,  for  one — to  say, 
that  considering  that  there  have  been  already  five 
new  slaveholding  States  formed  out  of  newly-acquired 
territory,  and  one  only,  at  most,  non-slaveholding 
State,  I  do  not  feel  that  I  am  called  on  to  go  farther  ; 
I  do  not  feel  the  obligation  to  yield  more.  But  our 
friends  of  the  South  say,  (  You  deprive  us  of  all  our 
rights  ;  we  have  fought  for  this  territory,  and  you 
deny  us  participation  in  it.'  Let  us  consider  this 
question  as  it  really  is  ;  and  since  the  honorable  gen 
tleman  from  Georgia  proposes  to  leave  the  case  to  the 
enlightened  and  impartial  judgment  of  mankind,  and 
as  I  agree  with  him  that  it  is  a  case  proper  to  be 
considered  by  the  enlightened  part  of  mankind,  let  us 
consider  how  the  matter  in  truth  stands.  What  is 
the  consequence  ?  Gentlemen  who  advocate  the  case 
which  my  honorable  friend  from  Georgia,  with  so  much 
ability,  sustains,  declare  that  we  invade  their  rights — 
that  we  deprive  them  of  a  participation  in  the  enjoyment 
of  territories  acquired  by  the  common  services  and  com 
mon  exertions  of  all.  Is  this  true  ?  How  deprived  ? 
Of  what  do  we  deprive  them  ?  Why,  they  say  that  we 
deprive  them  of  the  privilege  of  carrying  their  slaves, 
as  slaves,  into  the  new  territories.  Well,  sir,  what  is 
the  amount  of  that  ?  They  say  that  in  this  way  we 
deprive  them  of  the  opportunity  of  going  into  this 
acquired  territory  with  their  property.  Their  £  prop 
erty  !' — what  do  they  mean  by  that  ?  We  certainly 
do  not  deprive  them  of  the  privilege  of  going  into 
these  newly-acquired  territories  with  all  that,  in  the 
general  estimate  of  human  society,  in  the  general,  and 
common,  and  universal  Understanding  of  mankind,  is 
esteemed  property.  Not  at  all.  The  truth  is  just 
this  :  they  have  in  their  own  States  peculiar  laws, 
which  create  property  in  persons.  They  have  a  sys 
tem  of  local  legislation,  on  which  slavery  rests,  while 
everybody  agrees  that  it  is  against  natural  law,  or  at 
least  against  the  common  understanding  which  pre- 


38  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

vails  as  to  what  is  natural  law.  I  ain  not  going  into 
metaphysics,  for  therein  I  should  encounter  the  hon 
orable  member  from  South  Carolina,  and  we  should 
wander,  in  '  endless  mazes  lost/  until  after  the  time 
for  the  adjournment  of  Congress.  The  Southern 
States  have  peculiar  laws,  and  by  those  laws  there  is 
property  in  slaves.  This  is  purely  local.  The  real 
meaning,  then,  of  Southern  gentlemen,  in  making 
this  complaint,  is,  that  they  cannot  go  into  the  terri 
tories  of  the  United  States,  carrying  with  them  their 
own  peculiar  local  law — a  law  which  creates  property 
in  persons.  This,  according  to  their  own  statement, 
is  all  the  ground  of  complaint  they  have.  Now,  here, 
I  think,  gentlemen  are  unjust  toward  us.  How  un 
just  they  are,  others  will  judge — generations  that  will 
come  after  us  will  judge. 

"It  will  not  be  contended  that  this  sort  of  personal 
slavery  exists  by  general  law.  It  exists  only  by  local 
law.  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  the  validity  of  that  local 
law  where  it  is  established  ;  but  I  say  it  is,  after  all, 
nothing  but  local  law.  It  is  nothing  more.  And 
wherever  that  local  law  does  not  extend,  property  in 
persons  does  not  exist.  Well,  sir,  what  is  now  the 
demand  on  the  part  of  our  Southern  friends  ?  They 
say,  (  We  will  carry  our  local  laws  with  us  wherever 
we  go.  We  insist  that  Congress  does  us  injustice  un 
less  it  establishes  in  the  territory  into  which  we  wish  to 
go,  our  own  local  law/  This  demand  I,  for  one,  re 
sist,  and  shall  resist.  * 

"  Let  me  conclude,  therefore,  by  remarking,  that 
while  I  am  willing  to  present  this  as  presenting  my 
own  judgment  and  position,  in  regard  to  this  case — and 
I  beg  it  to  be  understood  that  I  am  speaking  for  no 
other  than  myself — and  while  I  am  willing  to  present 
this  to  the  whole  world  as  my  own  justification,  I  rest 
on  these  propositions  :  1st.  That  wh^n  this  Constitu 
tion  was  adopted,  nobody  looked  for  any  new  acquisi 
tion  of  territory  to  be  formed  into  slaveholding  States. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  39 

2d.  That  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  prohibited, 
and  were  intended  to  prohibit,  and  should  be  construed 
to  prohibit,  all  interference  of  the  general  government 
with  slavery  as  it  existed  and  still  exists  in  the  States. 
And  then,  that,  looking  to  the  effect  of  these  new  ac 
quisitions  which  have  in  this  great  degree  inured  to 
strengthen  that  interest  in  the  South  by  the  addition 
of  these  five  States,  there  is  nothing  unjust,  nothing  of 
which  an  honest  man  can  complain,  if  he  is  intelligent 
— and  I  feel  there  is  nothing  which  the  civilized  world, 
if  they  take  notice  of  so  humble  a  person  as  myself,  will 
reproach  me  with,  when  I  say,  as  I  said  the  other  day, 
that  I  had  made  up  my  mind,  for  one,  that,  under  no 
circumstances,  would  I  consent  to  the  further  extension 
of  the  area  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  or  to  the 
further  increase  of  slave  representation  in  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives." 

Mr.  Corwin,  too,  arguing  in  the  Senate  against  this 
bill,  said  : 

"  Now,  if  we  can  make  any  law  whatever,  not  con 
trary  to  the  express  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution,  we 
can  enact  that  a  man  with  $60,000  worth  of  bank 
notes  of  Maryland  shall  forfeit  the  whole  amount  if  he 
attempts  to  pass  one  of  them  in  the  territory  of  Califor 
nia.  We  may  say,  if  a  man  carry  a  menagerie  of  wild 
beasts  there,  worth  $500,000,  and  undertakes  to  exhibit 
them  there,  he  shall  forfeit  them.  The  man  comes  back 
with  his  menagerie,  and  says  that  the  law  forbade  him 
to  exhibit  his  animals  there  ;  it  was  thought  that,  as 
an  economical  arrangement,  such  things  should  not  be 
tolerated  there.  That  you  may  do.  He  of  the  lions 
and  tigers  goes  back,  having  lost  his  whole  concern. 
But  now  you  take  a  slave  to  California,  and  instantly 
your  power  fails  ;  all  the  power  of  the  sovereignty  of 
this  country  is  impotent  to  stop  him.  That  is  a 
strange  sort  of  argument  to  me.  It  has  always  been 
considered  that  when  a  State  forms  its  constitution  it 


40  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

can  exclude  slavery.  Why  so  ?  Becauses  it  chances 
to  consider  it  an  evil.  If  it  be  a  proper  subject  of  le 
gislation  in  a  State,  and  we  have  absolute  legislative 
power,  transferred  to  us  by  virtue  of  this  bloody  power 
of  conquest,  as  some  say,  or  by  purchase,  as  others 
maintain,  I  ask — Why  may  we  not  act  ?  Again — 
considering  this  an  abstract  question — are  there  not  du 
ties  devolving  upon  us,  for  the  performance  of  which 
we  may  not  be  responsible  to  any  earthly  tribunal,  but 
for  which  God,  who  has  created  us  all,  will  hold  us  ac 
countable  ?  What  is  your  duty,  above  all  others,  to  a 
conquered  people  ?  You  say  it  is  your  duty  to  give 
them  a  government — may  you  not,  then,  do  everything 
for  them  which  you  are  not  forbidden  to  do  by  some 
fundamental  axiomatic  truth  at  the  foundation  of  your 
constitution  ?  Show  me,  then,  how  your  action  is 
precluded,  and  I  submit.  Though  I  believe  it  ought 
to  be  otherwise,  yet,  if  the  constitution  of  my  country 
forbids  me,  I  yield.  The  constitutions  of  many  States 
declare  slavery  to  be  an  evil.  Southern  gentlemen 
have  said,  that  they  would  have  done  away  with  it  if 
possible,  and  they  have  apologized  to  the  world  and  to 
•themselves  for  the  existence  of  it  in  their  States. 
These  honest  old  men  of  another  day  never  could  have 
failed  to  strike  off  the  chains  from  every  negro  in  the 
cdlonies,  if  it  had  been  possible  for  them  to  do  so  with 
out  upturning  the  foundations  of  society. 

•:>  #  *  x  #  -:::- 

"  My  objection  is  a  radical  one  to  the  institution 
everywhere.  I  do  believe,  if  there  is  any  place  upon 
the  globe  which  we  inhabit,  where  a  white  man 
cannot  work,  he  has  no  business  there.  If  that  place 
is  fit  only  for  black  men  to  work,  let  black  men 
alone  work  there.  I  do  not  know  any  better  law 
for  man's  good  than  that  old  one,  which  was  an 
nounced  to  man  after  the  first  transgression,  that  by 
the  sweat  of  his  brow  he  should  earn  his  bread.  I 
don't  know  what  business  men  have  in  the  world,  un- 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  41 

less  it  is  to  work.  If  any  man  "has  no  work  of  head  or 
hand  to  do  in  this  world,  let  him  get  out  of  it  soon. 
The  hog  is  the  only  gentleman  who  has  nothing  to  do 
but  "eat  and  sleep.  Him  we  dispose  of  as  soon  as  he 
is  fat.  Difficult  as  the  settlement  of  this  question 
seems  to  some,  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  only  so  because 
we  will  not  look  at  it  and  treat  it  as  an  original  propo 
sition,  to  be  decided  by  the  influence  its  determination 
may  have  on  the  territories  themselves.  We  are  ever 
running  away  from  this,  and  inquiring  how  it  will  af 
fect  the  "  slave  States/'  or  the  "  free  States."  The 
onty  question  mainly  to  be  considered  is,  How  will  this 
policy  affect  the  territories  for  which  this  law  is  in 
tended  ?  Is  slavery  a  good  thing,  or  is  it  a  bad  thing, 
for  them  ?  With  my  views  of  the  subject,  I  must  con 
sider  it  bad  policy  to  plant  slavery  in  any  soil  where  I 
do  not  find  it  already  growing.  I  look  upon  it  as  an 
exotic,  that  blights  with  its  shade  the  soil  in  which  you 
plant  it  ;  therefore,  as  I  am  satisfied  of  our  constitu 
tional  ^power  to  prohibit  it,  so  I  am  equally  certain  it 
is  our  duty  to  do  so." 

For  these  reasons,  so  admirably  expressed  by  Web 
ster  and  Corwin,  standing  by  them,  and  agreeing  with 
them,  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  to  lay  the  territorial  bills 
upon  the  table,  when  they  came  up  there  for  considera 
tion.  This  was  on  the  28th  of-  July,  and  after  a  scene 
of  great  confusion  and  excitement.  The  motion  to  lay 
on  the  table  was  agreed  to — ayes,  114 ;  nays,  96. 
Among  the  ayes  was  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  who  made 
the  motion.  Afterward,  on  the  2d  day  of  August, 
when  the  House  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Terri 
tory  of  Oregon  was  before  the  House,  a  motion  was 
made  to  strike  out  that  part  of  the  bill  which  extended 
the  ordinance  of  1787  over  Oregon  Territory,  and  Mr. 
Lincoln  voted,  with  113  others,  to  retain  the  ordinance. 


42  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

During  the  second  session  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress, 
December  12,  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  for  the  following  reso 
lution,  submitted  in  the  House  by  Mr.  Eckert  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
reporting  a  Tariff  Bill,  based  upon  the  principles  of 
the  tariff  of  1842." 

On  the  13th,  Mr.  Palfrey,  of  Mass.,  asked  leave  to 
introduce  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  all  the  acts  of  Con 
gress  establishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Mr.  Lincoln,  not  believing  in  the  expediency  of  inter 
vention  against  slavery  in  the  District,  without  com 
pensation  to  the  slave- owner,  separated  himself  from 
several  of  his  political  friends,  and  voted  against  the 
proposition  of  Mr.  Palfrey. 
• 

THE    TERRITORIES. 

Later  in  the  day  Mr.  Koot  offered  the  subjoined  reso 
lution  : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Territories  be 
instructed  to  report  to  this  House,  with  as  little  delay 
as  practicable,  a  bill,  or  bills,  providing  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  for  each  of  the  territories  of  New-Mexico  and 
California,  and  excluding  slavery  therefrom/' 

Of  the  action  of  the  House  this  day  on  the  slavery 
question,  Dr.  Bailey,  of  the  Era,  who  was  warmly  op 
posed  to  General  Taylor's  election,  remarks  : 

"  Mr.  Palfrey  asked  leave  to  introduce  a  bill  for  the 
repeal  of  all  acts  of  Congress,  or  parts  of  acts,  estab 
lishing  or  maintaining  slavery  or  the  slave-trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Mr.  Holmes,  of  South  Carolina, 
objected,  and  the  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  43- 

nays,  the  vote  stood,  for  granting  leave,  70  ;  against  it, 
81.  It  will  be  observed  that  only  151  members  out  of 
228  voted.  The  House  was  not  full,  and  some  in  their 
seats  refused  to  vote.  Had  all  the  members  v&ted,  it  is 
doubtful  what  would  have  been  the  result.  It  will  be 
observed  in  our  report,  that  very  few  Democrats  of  the 
North  and  West  opposed  the  motion  for  leave.  A  few 
Northern  and  Western  Whigs  are  recorded  in  the  nega 
tive Mr.  Hoot  brought  forward  a  resolu 
tion,  that  the  Committee  on  the  Territories  be  in 
structed  to  report  to  this  House,  with  as  little  delay  as 
practicable,  a  bill  or  bills,  providing  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  for  each  of  the  territories  of  New-Mexico  and 
California,  and  excluding  slavery  therefrom.  Koot 
moved  the  previous  question.  Hall,  of  Missouri,  moved 
to  lay  on  the  table  ;  Giddings,  that  there  be  a  call  of 
the  House.  The  Clerk  called  the  roll — 187  members 
answered  to  their  names,  and  further  proceedings  in  the 
call  were  dispensed  with.  The  motion  to  lay  on  the 
table  was  lost — yeas  80,  nays  107.  The  previous 
question  was  seconded,  the  members  passing  through 
the  tellers." 

The  motion  was  agreed  to — ayes  106,  nays  80 — Mr. 
Lincoln,  as  usual,  standing  by  the  slavery-restriction 
clause. 

THE    GOTT    RESOLUTION. 

On  the  21st  of  December,  Mr.  Gott  offered  in  the 
House  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Whereas,  The  traffic  now  prosecuted  in  this  me 
tropolis  of  the  Eepublic,  in  human  beings,  as  chattels, 
is  contrary  to  natural  justice  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  political  system,  and  is  notoriously  a 


44  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES     OF 

reproach  to  our  country  throughout  Christendom,  and 
a  serious  hinderance  to  the  progress  of  republican  lib 
erty  among  the  nations  of  the  earth  :  Therefore, 

"  Besolved,  That  the  Committee  for  the  District  of 
Columbia  be  instructed  to  report  a  bill,  as  soon  as  prac 
ticable,  prohibiting  the  slave  trade  in  said  District/' 

The  resolution  having  been  read — 

Mr.  Haralson  moved  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Went  worth  and  Mr.  Gott'  demanded  the  yeas 
and  nays,  which  were  ordered. 

And  the  resolution  having  been  again  read — 

The  question  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Haralson  was 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  82,  nays  85. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  true  to  his  own  convictions  of  what  was 
best  under  the  circumstances,  voted  for  the  Haralson 
motion  to  table  the  resolution,  wishing  to  accompany 
such  a  bill  with  provisions  which  he  considered  neces 
sary  to  its  success. 

The  question  then  recurring  on  the  demand  for  the 
previous  question — 

Mr.  Vinton  rose  to  inquire  of  the  Chair  whether  the 
resolution  was  open  to  amendment. 

The  Speaker  said  it  would  be  open  to  amendment 
if  the  previous  question  should  not  be  seconded. 

The  question  being  then  taken,  the  demand  for  the 
previous  question  was  seconded — yeas  85,  nays  49. 

Upon  the  question,  "  Shall  the  main  question  [upon 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution]  be  now  put  ?"  the  yeas 
and  nays  were  demanded  and  ordered  ;  and  being  taken, 
the  yeas  were  112,  nays  64. 

Mr.  Houston,  of  Alabama,  and  Mr.  Venable,  called 
for  the  yeas  and  nays  ;  which  were  ordered. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  45 

Mr.  Donnell  inquired  of  the  Chair,  if  it  would  now 
be  in  order  to  move  that  there  be  a  call  of  the  House. 

The  Speaker  answered  in  the  negative. 

And  the  main  question,  "  Shall  the  resolution  be 
adopted  ?"  was  then  taken,  and  decided  in  the  affirma 
tive — yeas  98,  nays  87 — as  follows  : 

YEAS — Messrs.  Abbott,  Ashmun,  Belcher,  Bingham,  Blackmar, 
Blanchard,  Butler,  Canby,  Cathcart,  Collainer,  Conger,  Cranston, 
Crowell,  Cummins,  Darling,  Dickey,  Dickinson,  Dixon,  Daniel  Duncan» 
Edwards,  Embree,  Nathan  Evans,  Faran,  Farrelly,  Fisher,  Freedley, 
Fries,  Giddings,  Gott,  Greeley,  Gregory,  Grinnell,  Hale,  Nathan  K.  Hall, 
James  G.  Hampton,  Moses  Hampton,  Henley,  Henry,  Elias  B.  Holmes, 
Hubbard,  Hudson,  Hunt,  Joseph  R.  Ingerscll,  Irvin,  James  H.  Johnson, 
Kellogg,  Daniel  P.  King,  Lahm,  William  T.  Lawrence,  Sidney  Lawrence, 
Lefflcr,  Lord,  Lynde,  McClelland,  Mcllvaine,  Job  Mann,  Horace  Mann. 
Marsh,  Marvin,  Morris,  Mullin,  Newell.  Nicoll,  Palfrey,  Peaslee,  Peck, 
Pettit,  Pollock,  Putnam,  Reynolds,  Richey,  Robinson,  Rockhill,  Julius 
Rockwell,  J.  A.  Rockwell,  Rose,  Root,  Rumsey,  St.  John,  Sherrill,  Sil 
vester,  Slingerland,  Robert  Smith,  Starkweather,  C.  E.  Stuart,  Strohm, 
Tallmadge,  James  Thompson,  William  Thompson,  Thurston,  Tuck, 
Turner,  Van  Dyke,  Vinton,  Warren,  Wentworth,  White  and  Wilson — 98. 

NAYS — Messrs.  Adams,  Barringer,  Beale,  Bedinger,  Bocock,  Botts, 
Bowlin,  Boyd,  Boydon,  Bridges,  William  G.  Brown,  Charles  Brown, 
Albert  G  Brown,  Btickner,  Burt,  Chapman,  Chase,  Franklin  Clarke, 
Beverly  L.  Clarke,  Howell  Cobb,  Williamson  R.  W.  Cobb,  Coke,  Cris- 
field,  Crozier,  Daniel,  Donnell,  Dunn,  Alexander  Evans,  Featherston, 
Ficklin,  Flournoy,  French,  Fulton,  Gaines,  Gentry,  Goggin,  Green,  Wil- 
lard  P.  Hall,  Hammons,  Haralson,  Harmanson,  Harris,  Hill,  George  S. 
Houston,  John  W.  Houston,  Inge,  Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  Iverson,  Jameson, 
Andrew  Johnson,  G.  W.  Jones,  J.  W.  Jones,  Kennon,  Thomas  Butler 
King,  La  Seie,  Ligon,  Lincoln,  Lumpkin,  McClernand,  McDowell,  Mc- 
Lane,  Meade,  Miller,  Morehead,  Morse,  Outlaw,  Pendleton,  Peyton, 
Pilsbury,  Preston,  Sawyer,  Shepperd,  Simpson,  Smart,  Stanton,  Ste 
phens,  Strong,  Thibodeaux,  Thomas,  R.  W.  Thompson,  Tompkins, 
Toombs,  Venable,  Wallace,  Wiley,  Williams,  and  Woodward — 88. 

So  the  resolution  was  adopted. 
The  National  Era,  which  was  not  inclined  to  show 
much  mercy  toward  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Taylor's 


46  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

Administration,  gave  the  following  explanation  of  cer 
tain  votes  cast  against  the  resolution  : 

"  Men  will  wonder,  twenty-five  years  hence,  how 
eighty-seven  men,  in  an  American  Congress,  could 
stand  up  before  God,  and  virtually  vote  for  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  trade  in  human  beings  in  the  capital 
of-  the  foremost  Kepublic  in  the  world. 

"  We  would  be  just,  however.  A  few  members  from 
the  free  States  voting  nay  feared  any  movement  which 
might  tend,  in  their  opinion,  to  embarrass  the  question 
of  slavery  extension.  These  voted  in  the  negative  on 
the  resolution,  not  because  they  were  opposed  to  its 
object,  but  because  they  believed  this  object  could  be 
better  attained,  after  the  settlement  of  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  territories.  While  dissenting  from  the 
policy  of  these  gentlemen,  this  statement  from  us  is  a 
simple  act  of  justice  to  them." 

PUBLIC    LANDS. 

On  the  21st  of  December,  Mr.  McClelland  in  the 
House  of  Kepresentatives  offered  the  subjoined  resolu 
tion  : 

"Resolved,  That  the  present  traffic  in  the  public 
lands  should  cease,  and  that  they  should  be  disposed 
of  to  occupants  and  cultivators,  on  proper  conditions, 
at  such  a  price  as  will  nearly  indemnify  the  cost  of 
their  purchase,  management,  and  sale." 

The  previous  question  was  called,  and  a  motion  was 
made  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table,  which  pre 
vailed.  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  against  tabling  it,  because 
he  was  ready  to  do  anything  which  should  give  the 
public  lands  to  the  people,  and  not  to  the  speculators. 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  47 


A   SLAVE    CASE. 

On  the  6 th  of  January  the  slave  case — that  of  An 
tonio  Pacheco — was  reported  to  the  House,  and  was 
taken  up.  It  was  a  claim  for  the  value  of  a  slave  who 
was  hired  by  a  United  States  officer  ;  betook  himself 
to  the  everglades  ;  fought  with  the  Indians  against  the 
whites  ;  was  taken  in  arms  as  an  enemy,  and  as  an 
enemy  sent  out  of  the  Territory,  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  lives  of  the  inhabitants. 

Mr.  Giddings,  speaking  of  the  case,  recommended 
that— 

"  The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  were  unable  to 
unite  in  a  report  upon  the  case.  Five  slaveholders, 
representing  slave  property  on  this  floor,  and  consti 
tuting  a  majority  of  the  committee,  have  reported  a 
bill  for  the  payment  of  this  amount  to  the  claimant. 
Four  Northern  members,  representing  freemen  only, 
have  made  a  minority  report  against  the  bill.  This 
report,  as  I  think,  is  sustained  by  irrefutable  argu 
ments. 

"  The  majority  of  the  committee  assume  the  position 
that  slaves  are  regarded  by  the  Federal  Constitution 
as  property,  and  that  this  government  and  the  people 
of  the  free  States  are  bound  to  regard  theni  as  prop 
erty,  and  to  pay  for  them  as  we  would  for  so  many 
mules  or  oxen  taken  into  the  public  service.  The 
minority  deny  this  doctrine.  They  insist  that  the 
Federal  Constitution  treats  them  as  persons  only,  and 
that  this  government  cannot  constitutionally  involve 
the  people  of  the  free  States  in  the  guilt  of  sustaining 
slavery  ;  that  we  have  no  constitutional  powers  to 
legislate  upon  the  relation  of  master  and  slave. 
#  *  #  * 

"  In  1772,  Lord  Mansfield  boldly  assailed  the  doc- 


48  LIFE      AND     SPEECHES     OF 

trine  laid  down  in  this  Hall  to-day,  and  exhibited  its 
absurdity  in  one  of  the  ablest  opinions  to  be  found  on 
record.  From  that  period  this  doctrine  of  property  in 
man  has  found  no  supporters  under  the  government  of 
England.  With  all  our  refinement  as  a  nation  ;  with 
all  our  boasted  adherence  to  liberty,  on  this  subject  we 
are  three  quarters  of  a  century  behind  our  mother- 
country. 

"  When  Sir  Warren  Hastings  was  on  trial  in  the 
House  of  Peers,  in  1787,  Mr.  Sheridan,  speaking  on 
this  subject,  in  his  own  peculiar  and  fervid  eloquence, 
declared  that  e  allegiance  to  that  Power  which  gives  us 
the  forms  of  men,  commands  us  to  maintain  the  rights 
of  men  ;  and  never  yet  was  this  truth  dismissed  from 
the  human  heart — never,  in  any  time,  in  any  age — 
never  in  any  clime  where  rude  man  ever  had  any  social 
feelings — never  was  this  unextinguishable  truth  de 
stroyed  from  the  heart  of  man,  placed  as  it  is  in  the 
core  and  centre  of  it  by  his  Maker,  that  man  was  not 
made  the  property  of  man.'  This  was  the  language 
of  British  statesmen  sixty-two  years  since.  To-day 
we  have  before  this  branch  of  the  American  Congress 
the  report  of  a  committee  avowing  that,  under  this 
federal  government,  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  (  man  is  the  property,  of  his  fellow-mortal.' 

"  These  sentiments  of  the  British  statesmen  and  ju 
rists  inspired  the  hearts  of  our  Americans  patriots  in 
1776,  when  they  declared  it  to  be  a  '  SELF-EVIDENT 

TRUTH  THAT  ALL  MEN  ARE  CREATED  EQUAL/   When 

they  framed  our  Constitution,  they  declared  their  ob 
ject  was  '  to  establish  justice,  and  to  secure  to  them 
selves  and  their  posterity  the  blessings  of  liberty.' 
This  subject  of  holding  property  in  men  did  not  escape 
their  attention,  nor  have  they  left  us  ignorant  of  their 
views  in  regard  to  it.  Mr.  Madison,  the  father  of  the 
Constitution,  has  left  to  us  a  clear  and  explicit  account 
of  their  intentions.  He  informs  us,  that  on 

"  '  Wednesday,  August  22,  the  Convention  proceed- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  49 

eel  to  consider  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Detail, 
in  relation  to  duties  on  exports,  a  capitation  tax,  and 
a  navigation  act.  The  fourth  section  reported  was  as 
follows  : 

"  i  No  tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  by  the  Legislature 
on  articles  exported  from  any  State,  nor  on  the  migra 
tion  nor  importation  of  such  persons  as  the  several 
States  shall  think  proper  to  admit  ;  nor  shall  such  mi 
gration  nor  importation  be  prohibited/ 

"  '  Mr.  Gerry  thought  we  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  conduct  of  the  States  as  to  slavery,  but  we  ought  to 
' be  careful  not  to  give  any  sanction' 

"  Our  people  think  with  Mr.  Gerry,  that  '  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  slavery  in  the  States.'  We  are  de 
termined  that  we  will  not  be  involved  in  its  guilt. 
With  Mr.  Gerry,  we  intend  c  to  be  careful  to  give  it  no 
sanction.'  No,  sir  ;  we  will  not  sanction  your  slavery 
by  paying  our  money  for  the  bodies  of  slaves.  This  is 
the  doctrine  which  we  hold,  and  which  we  expect  to 
maintain  ;  yet  the  members  of  this  body  are  now  en 
gaged  in  legislating  upon  the  price  of  human  flesh. 
If  we  pass  this  bill,  we  shall  give  our  most  solemn 
sanction  to  that  institution  which  Gerry  and  his  com 
patriots  detested.  Will  the  members  from  Pennsyl 
vania,  the  successors  of  Franklin  and  Wilson,  lend 
their  sanction  to  slavery,  by  voting  the  moneys  of  the 
People  to  pay  for  slaves  ? 

"  But  Mr.  Madison  tells  us  that  '  Mr.  Sherman  (of 
Connecticut)  was  opposed  to  any  tax  on  slaves,  as 
making  the  matter  worse,  because  it  implied  they  were 
property.' 

"  I  understand  that  some  gentlemen  from  the  North 
admit  that  slaves  are  property.  Mr.  Sherman  and  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  would  do  no  act  by  which 
it  could  be  implied  that  they  were  property. 

"  Mr.  Madison  also  participated  ..in  the  discussion 
himself ;  and,  as  he  informs  us,  <  DECLARED  THAT  HE 

THOUGHT  IT  WRONG  TO  ADMIT  THAT  THERE  COULD  BE 

3 


50  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

' 

PROPERTY  IN  MEN/     And  the  report  of  the  Committee 
was  so  amended  as  to  exclude  that  idea. 

"  In  that  assemblage  of  illustrious  statesmen,  no 
man  expressed  his  dissent  from  these  doctrines  of 
Gerry,  of  Sherman,  and  of  Madison.  These  doctrines 
are  :  1.  That  we  i  should  have  nothing  to  do  with 
slavery,  but  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  give  it  any  sanc 
tion.'  2.  That  '  we  should  do  no  act  by  ivhich  it  can 
be  implied  that  there  can  be  property  in  men.'  3. 
That  *  it  would  be  WRONG  FOR  us  TO  ADMIT  THAT 

THERE    CAN    BE    PROPERTY    IN    MEN/         Such    were    the 

views  of  those  who  framed  the  Constitution.     They 
intended  to  express  their  views  in  such  language  as  to 

be  understood.     Will  this  House  stand  by  them  ?" 
#  £•  *  -:;:•  # 

"  With  great  propriety  the  gentleman  from  New- 
Hampshire  inquired,  at  what  time  the  liability  of  gov 
ernment  to  pay  for  this  slave  commenced  ?  The  ques 
tion  has  not  been  answered,  nor  do  I  think  it  can  be 
answered.  The  undertaking  was  hazardous  in  the 
highest  degree.  The  troops  were  all  killed  but  two  or 
three,  by  the  enemy,  and  those  were  supposed  to  be 
dead.  This  man  alone  escaped  unhurt.  This  danger 
was  foreseen,  and  the  master  put  a  price  upon  the  ser 
vices  to  compare  with  the  risk.  Did  this  contract  bind 
the  government  to  pay  for  the  master's  loss,  admitting 
the  slave  to  have  been  property  ?  Was  it  any  part  of 
the  compact  that  the  government  should  insure  the 
property  ?  It  strikes  me  that  no  lawyer  would  an 
swer  in  the  affirmative.  The  law  of  bailment  is  surely 
understood  by  every  tyro  in  the  profession.  The  bailee 
for  hire  is  bound  to  exercise  the  same  degree  of  care 
over  the  property  that  careful  men  ordinarily  take  of 
their  own  property.  If,  then,  the  property  be  lost,  the 
owner  sustains  such  loss.  Now,  conceding  this  man  to 
be  property,  the  government  would  not  have  been  lia 
ble,  had  he  ran  away,  or  been  killed  by  accident,  or 
died  of  sickness.  Yet,  sir,  when  property  is  lost  or 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  51 

destroyed  by  the  act  of  God  or  the  common  enemies  of 
the  country,  no  bailee  is  ever  holden  responsible — not 
even  common  carriers,  and  that  is  the  highest  species 
of  bailment.  Had  this  officer,  acting  on  his  own  re 
sponsibility,  agreed  to  take  this  negro  through  the 
country  for  hire  (admitting  the  man  to  have  been 
property,  and  governed  by  the  same  rules  of  law  as 
though  he  had  been  a  mule  or  an  ass),  and  he  had  been 
captured  by  the  enemy,  no  law  would  have  held  such 
bailee  liable.  But,  sir,  an  entirely  different  rule  of  law 
prevails  where  the  owner  of  a  chattel  lets  it  to  a  bailee 
for  wages.  Had  this  man  been  a  mule  or  an  ass,  and 
the  officer  had  hired  him  of  the  owner  for  wages,  to  ride 
through  that  country,  or  to  work  in  a  team,  or  in  any 
other  manner,  and  he  had  been  captured  by  the  enemy, 
the  bailee  would  not  have  been  liable,  upon  any  rule  of 
law  or  of  justice  ;  nor  would  he  have  been  liable  if  lost 
in  any  other  manner,  except  by  neglect  of  the  bailee. 

"  The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Burt] 
said  he  would  place  this  case  upon  strictly  legal  prin 
ciples.  Sir,  I  meet  the  gentleman  on  that  proposition. 
I,  too,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  am  willing  to 
submit  it  on  principles  of  law  ;  and  I  believe  that  no 
jurist,  or  even  justice  of  the  peace,  would  hesitate  to 
reject  the  case  on  those  grounds.  All  must  admit  that 
the  liability  of  the  government  concerning  this  man 
ceased  when  he  was  captured  by  the  enemy  ;  up  to 
this  point  the  government  was  not  liable.  I  understood 
the  author  of  this  bill  [Mr.  Burt]  to  argue,  however, 
that  we  became  liable  under  the  contract  of  bailment. 
That  contract  was  ended  when  the  man  was  captured. 
The  claimant  then  failed  to  perform  his  part  of  it. 
The  stipulation  on  the  part  of  the  master  was,  that 
the  negro  should  pilot  the  troops  from  Fort  Brooke  to 
Fort  King,  the  place  of  their  destination,  at  the  rate 
of  twenty-five  dollars  per  month.  He  was  captured 
when  only  half  the  distance  was  accomplished.  Here 
the  master  ceased  to  perform  his  compact  ;  it  was  be- 


52  LIFE     AND     SPECHES    OF 

yond  his  power  to  do  so.  The  contract  then  ceased  to 
exist  ;  and  from  that  time  forth  the  claimant  had  no 
demand  on  us,  either  in  equity  or  in  law." 

This  is  the  Antonio  Pacheco  case,  stated  at  some 
length,  for  it  involved  important  principles.  And  here 
we  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  nev 
er  found,  while  in  Congress,  violating  any  principle  to 
which  he  gave  his  adhesion,  no  matter  how  great  the 
temptation  or  the  emergency.  He  did  at  times  waive 
the  assertion  of  a  principle  when  he  thought  it  would 
only  result  in  irritation,  but  he  never  voted  against  one 
of  those  principles. 

The  case  above,  mentioned,  came  up  in  the  House 
Nov.  6,  1849  : 

"  The  first  business  in  order  being  the  pending  mo 
tion  made  by  Mr.  Giddings  for  a  reconsideration  of  the 
vote  upon  the  engrossment  of  the  bill  to  pay  the  heirs 
of  Antonio  Pacheco  $1,000,  as  the  value  of  a  slave 
transported  to  the  West  with  the  Seminole  Indians — 

"  Mr.  Giddings  proceeded  to  address  the  House,  hav 
ing  first  declined  to  give  way  for  a  motion  by  Mr. 
Kockwell,  of  Connecticut,  .that  the  House  should  con 
sider  the  bill  to  establish  a  Board  for  the  settlement  of 
private  claims. 

"  The  previous  question,  having  been  moved  upon 
the  motion  to  reconsider,  was  then  seconded,  and  the 
main  question  ordered  to  be  now  put. 

"  Mr.  Giddings,  with  a  view  to  save  the  time  of  the 
House,  withdrew  his  motion,  and  the  question  accord 
ingly  recurred  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

"  Upon  this  question,   Mr.  Dickey  demanded   the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  53 

yeas  and  nays;  which  were  ordered  ;  and  the  question 
being  taken — 

"  The  Speaker  announced  the  vote — yeas  90,  nays  89. 

"  The  twelfth  rule  of  the  House  provided, (  that  in  all 
cases  of  election  by  the  House,  the  Speaker  shall  vote  ; 
in  other  cases  he  shall  not  vote,  unless  the  House  be 
equally  divided,  or  unless  his  vote,  if  given  to  the  mi 
nority,  will  make  the  division  equal ;  and  in  case  of 
such  equal  division,  the  question  shall  be  lost/ 

"  The  Speaker,  proceeding  to  discharge  the  duty  thus 
imposed  upon  him,  said  : 

"  '  A  case  has  occurred  in  which,  under  the  rule  of 
the  House,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Speaker  to  vote.  The 
Speaker  regrets  that  in  this,  as  in  many  other  ca'ses,  he 
has  been  deprived  of  the  opportunity  of  listening  to  the 
full  discussion  of  the  question,  having  heard  no  speech 
except  that  which  has  beeji  made  this  morning,  the  de 
bate  having  taken  place  mainly  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  private  calendar. 

" i  The  Speaker  also  has  had  little  opportunity,  if 
any,  to  turn  his  attention  to  the  principles  or  the  facts 
involved  in  this  case.  He  cannot  shrink,  however, 
from  giving  his  vote.  But  it  is  a  well-admitted  par 
liamentary  principle,  laid  down  in  the  books,  that 
where  the  Speaker  has  any  doubt  in  relation  to  a 
question,  his  vote  shall  be  given  in  such  a  way  as  not 
finally  to  conclude  it.  It  shall  be  given  in  such  a  way 
that  the  consideration  of  the  question  may  be  again 
open  to  the  House,  if  the  House,  under  any  circum 
stances,  shall  choose  to  reconsider  it. 

"'The  Speaker  takes  the  opportunity  to  say,  that 
he  does  not  concur  in  full  with  either  of  the  principles 


54  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

. 

which  have  been  maintained  on  both  sides  of  the  House. 
So  far  as  the  circumstances  of  the  case  have  come  to 
his  knowledge,  he  doubts  exceedingly  whether  the 
question  of  property  in  slaves  is  involved.  And  it  has 
been  to  him  a  matter  of  great  doubt,  from  such  part  of 
the  arguments  as  he  has  heard ' 

"  At  this  point  of  his  remarks,  the  Speaker  was  in 
terrupted  by  the  Clerk,  who  showed  him  a  paper  con 
taining  the  state  of  the  vote. 

"  The  Speaker  said  the  Clerk  was  mistaken  in  the 
vote.  The  vote  stands — ninety- one  in  the  affirmative, 
eighty-nine  in  the  negative. 

"  So  the  bill  was  declared  to  be  passed,  Mr.  Lin 
coln  voting  against  the  passage. 

"  Mr.  Burt  moved  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  just 
taken,  and  that  the  motion  be  laid  upon  the  table  ; 
and  also  moved,  that  before,  the  vote  be  taken,  there 
should  be  a  call  of  the  House. 

"  Mr.  Palfrey  appealed  to  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  to  allow  him  the  floor  a  moment,  but  Mr. 
Burt  peremptorily  declined. 

"  Mr.  Went  worth  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays  upon 
the  motion  for  a  call  of  the  House,  and  being  ordered 
and  taken,  the  result  was,  yeas  78,  nays  105.  So  the 
call  was  refused. 

"  Mr.  Burt,  with  a  view,  as  he  said,  to  save  the  time 
of  the  House,  withdrew  his  motion  for  reconsideration. 

"  Mr.  Cocke  renewed  the  motion,  and  moved  that  it 
be  laid  on. the  table. 

"  Mr.  Palfrey  moved  a  call  of  the  House,  when 

"  Mr.  Cocke  withdrew  his  motion  for  reconsidera 
tion  ;  and,  after  some  conversation  upon  points  of  or- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  55 

der,  the  whole  subject  was  dropped,  and  the  bill  was 
considered  passed. 

u  Mr.  Wentworth  rose  (he  said)  to  a  privileged  ques 
tion,  and  said  that  a  mistake  had  been  discovered  at 
the  Clerk's  desk,  in  the  vote  upon  the  passage  of  the 
bill  for  the  relief  of  the  legal  representatives  of  An 
tonio  Pacheco.  He  asked  that  the  journal  might  be 
corrected. 

"  The  Speaker  stated  that  corrections  of  the  journal 
would  be  in  order  on  Monday  morning,  after  the  read 
ing  of  the  journal. 

"  Mr.  Wentworth  asked  if  it  would  not  be  in  order 
now  to  make  a  correction  in  the  vote. 

"  The  Speaker  replied  that  it  would. 

"  On  motion  of  Mr.  Stephens,  the  House  adjourned." 

On  the  following  Monday,  immediately  after  the 
reading  of  the  journal,  the  Speaker  said  : 

"  The  House  will  remember  that  the  vote  on  the 
passage  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  heirs  of  An 
tonio  Pacheco,  was  originally  made  up  by  the  Clerk, 
yeas  90,  nays  89;  and  this  record  having  been  handed 
to  the  Speaker,  and  by  him  announced  to  the  House, 
the  Speaker  proceeded  to  make  some  remarks  upon  the 
bill,  preparatory  to  giving  the  vote  contemplated  in 
such  cases  by  the  rules  of  the  House.  While  in  the 
act  of  explanation,  the  Speaker  was  interrupted  by  the 
Clerk,  who  stated  that,  on  a  more  careful  count,  the 
vote  was  found  to  be  yeas  91,  nays  89.  The  interven 
tion  of  the  Speaker  was  therefore  no  longer  allowable, 
and  the  bill  was  declared  to  have  passed  the  House. 

"  The  Chair  takes  the  earliest  opportunity  to  state 
to  the  House,  this  morning,  that,  upon  a  re-examina- 


56  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

tion  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  the  Clerk  has  ascertained 
that  an  error  was  still  made  in  the  announcement  of 
the  vote  on  Saturday.  The  vote  actually  stood,  yeas 
89,  nays  89.  The  correction  will  now,  accordingly,  be 
made  in  the  journal  ;•  and  a  case  is  immediately  pre 
sented,  agreeably  to  the  12th  rule  of  the  House,  for 
the  interposition  of  the  Speaker's  vote. 

"  At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  the  Speaker  was 
interrupted  by 

"  Mr.  Farrelly,  who  rose  and  called  for  a  further  cor 
rection  of  the  journal,  stating  that  he  voted  in  the 
negative  on  Saturday  last,  and  his  vote  appeared  not 
to  have  been  recorded. 

"  The  Speaker  decided  that  it  was  the  right  of  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  to  have  his  vote  recorded, 
if  he  voted  on  Saturday  last. 

"  And  the  correction  was  accordingly  made. 

"  The  vote  was  then  finally  announced — yeas  89, 
nays  90. 

"  The  Speaker  stated  that  he  came  into  the  House 
this  morning  with  the  full  expectation  of  giving  his 
vote  upon  this  bill,  and  prepared  to  give  his  reasons 
for  the  vote.  But,  as  the  question  now  stood,  although 
it  might  be  in  his  power  to  vote  agreeably  to  the  letter 
of  the  12th  rule,  it  was,  in  his  opinion,  not  within  the 
contemplation  or  intention  of  the  rule  that  he  should 
vote.  The  rule  contemplated  that  the  Speaker  should 
be  allowed  to  vote  whenever  he  could  make  a  difference 
in  the  result — wherever  his  vote  would  either  pass  or 
prevent  the  passage  of  the  proposition  before  the 
House.  Under  present  circumstances,  the  Speaker's 
vote  could  not  in  any  way  affect  the  decision  of  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  57 

House.  The  bill  was  already  lost  by  the  vote  as  it 
stood.  A  vote  against  the  bill  would  only  increase  the 
majority  by  which  it  was  defeated";  while  a  vote  in 
favor  of  the  bill  would  only  make  a  tie,  and  the  bill 
would  still  be  lost.  The  Speaker,  therefore,  did  not 
consider  himself  called  upon  to  give  any  vote  on  the 
subject." 

Subsequently  the  case  came  up  again,  on  a  motion 
to  reconsider,  and  the  bill  was  passed,  ayes  98,  nays 
92 — Mr.  Lincoln  voting  no. 

LINCOLN'S  AMENDMENT  TO  LOTT'S  RESOLUTION. 

Oh  the  16th  of  January,  the  celebrated  Lott  resolu 
tion  against  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Colum 
bia,  was  again  before  the  House,  a  motion  to  reconsider 
having  been  entertained  previously,  and  the  considera 
tion  of  the  motion  having  been  postponed  to  this  day. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  to  table 
the  original  resolution,  not  liking  its  terms.  He  now, 
by  the  courtesy  of  his  colleague,  Mr.  Wentworth, 
who  had  the  floor,  offered  the  subjoined  resolution  as  a 
substitute  for  the  Lott  resolution  : 

"  Eesolvedj  That  the  Committee  on  the  District  of 
Columbia  be  instructed  to  report  a  bill  in  substance  as 
follows  : 

"  SEC.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  Souse  of 
Representatives  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  as 
sembled,  That  no  person  not  now  within  the  District  of 
Columbia,  nor  now  owned  by  any  person  or  persons  now 
resident  within  it,  nor  hereafter  born  within  it,  shall 
ever  be  held  in  slavery  within  said  District. 

"  SEP.  2.  That  no  person  now  within  said  District  or 

3. 


58  LIFE     A  K  I)     SPEECHES     OF 

now  owned  by  any  person  or  persons  now  resident  with 
in  the  same,  or  hereafter  born  within  it,  shall  ever  be 
held  in  slavery  without  the  limits  of  said  District. 
Provided,  That  officers  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  being  citizens  of  the  slaveholding  States, 
coming  into  said  District  ori*public  business,  and  re 
maining  only  so  long  as  may  be  reasonably  necessary 
for  that  object,  may  be  attended  into  and  out  of  said 
District,  and  while  there,  by  the  necessary  servants  of 
themselves  and  their  families,  without  their  right  to 
hold  such  servants  in  service  being  thereby  impaired. 

"  SEC.  3.  That  all  children  born  of  slave  mothers 
within  said  District,  on  or  after  the  first  day  of  January, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1850,  shall  be  free  ;  but  shall 
be  reasonably  supported  and  educated  by  the  respective 
owners  of  their  mothers  or  by  their  heirs  and  represent 
atives  until  they  respectively  arrive  at  the  age  of 

years,  when  they  shall  be  entirely  free.  And  the  muni 
cipal  authorities  of  Washington  and  Georgetown,  within 
their  respective  jurisdictional  limits,  are  hereby  'em 
powered  and  required  to  make  all  suitable  and  neces 
sary  provisions  for  enforcing  obedience  to  this  section, 
on  the  part  of  both  masters  and  apprentices. 

"  SEC.  4.  That  all  persons  now  within  said  District, 
lawfully  held  as  slaves,  or  now  owned  by  any  person  or 
persons  now  resident  within  said  District,  shall  remain 
such  at  the  will  of  their  respective  owners,  their  heirs 
and  legal  representatives.  Provided,  That  any  such 
owner,  or  his  legal  representatives,  may  at  any  time  re 
ceive  from  the  treasury  of  the  United  States  the  full 
value  of  his  or  her  slave  of  the  class  in  this  section 
mentioned  ;  upon  which  such  slave  shall  be  forthwith 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  59 

and  for  ever  free.  And  provided  further,  That  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  shall  be  a  board, 
for  determining  the  value  of  such  slaves  as  their  own 
ers  may  desire  to  emancipate  under  this  section,  and 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  hold  a  session  for  the  pur 
pose,  on  the  first  Monday  of  each  calendar  month  ;  to 
receive  all  applications  and  on  satisfactory  evidence  in 
each  case,  that  the  person  presented  for  valuation  is  a 
slave,  and  of  the  class  in  this  section  mentioned,  and  is 
owned  by  the  applicant,  shall  value  such  slave  at  his  oi 
lier  full  cash  value  and  give  to  the  applicant  an  order 
on  the  treasury  for  the  amount  and  also  to  such  slave 
a  certificate  of  freedom. 

"  SEC.  5.  That  the  municipal  authorities  of  Washing 
ton  and  Georgetown  within  their  respective  jurisdic- 
tional  limits,  are  hereby  empowered  and  required  to 
provide  active  and  efficient  means  to  assert  and  deliver 
up  to  their  owners  all  fugitive  slaves  escaping  into  said 
District. 

"  SEC.  6.  That  the  election  officers  within  said  District 
of  Columbia  are  hereby  empowered  and  required  to 
open  polls  at  all  the  usual  places  of  holding  elections 
on  the  first  Monday  of  April  next  and  receive  the  vote 
of  every  free  white  male  citizen  above  the  age  of  twen 
ty-one  years,  having  resided  within  said  district  for  the 
period  of  one  year  or  more  next  preceding  the  time  of 
such  voting  for  or  against  this  act,  to  proceed  in  taking 
said  votes  in  all  respects  herein  not  specified,  as  at  elec 
tions  under  the  municipal  laws,  and  with  as  little  delay 
as  possible  to  transmit  correct  statements  of  the  votes 
so  cast  tb  the  President  of  the  United  States  ;  and  it 


60  LIFE     AND     SPEECHESOF 

shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  to  canvass  said  votes 
immediately  and  if  a  majority  of  them  be  found  to  be 
for  this  act  to  forthwith  issue  his  proclamation,  giving 
notice  of  the  fact,  and  this  act  shall  only  be  in  full 
force  and  effect  on  and  after  the  day  of  such  procla 
mation. 

"  SEC.  7.  That  involuntary  servitude  for  the  punish 
ment  of  crime,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted,  shall  in  nowise  be  prohibited  by  this  act. 

"  SEC.  8.  That  for  all  the  purposes  of  this  act  the 
jurisdictional  limits  of  Washington  are  extended  to  all 
parts  of  the  District  of  Columbia  not  now  included 
within  the  present  limits  of  Georgetown." 

This  bill  shows  us  the  real  position  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
on  the  slavery  question,  in  1849.  He  was  opposed  to 
the  institution,  to  its  extension  into  the  territories,  and 
was  in  favor  of  its  abolition  in  the  District  of  Colum 
bia,  but  with  compensation  to  the  owner.  He  was  for 
reform,  but  was  a  cautious,  conservative  reformer. 

On  the  31st  of  January,  Mr.  Edwards,  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  reported  a  bill  to 
prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  the  District  of 
Columbia  as  merchandise,  or  for  sale  or  hire.  After  it 
was  read  twice  a  motion  was  made  to  lay  it  on  the 
table,  which  motion  was  lost,  Mr.  Lincoln  again  vot 
ing  no. 

On  the  21st  of  February,  a  test  vote  was  taken  in  the 
House  on  a  bill  to  abolish  the  franking  privilege.  The 
motion  was  made  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.  Mr. 
Lincoln  voted  with  the  friends  of  the  bill,  who  saved 
it  from  immediate  defeat. 

The  reader  will  easily  discover  Mr.  Lincoln's  position 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  61 

in  Congress  upon  the  more  important  subjects  before  it 
in  this  record. .  On  the  slavery  question  he  was  always 
true  to  his  principles,  ever  voting  against  the  extension 
of  slavery,  and  on  the  Mexican  war  occupying  the 
ground  of  the  Whigs  of  that  day  ;  refusing  to  justify 
the  war  itself,  but  voting  the  supplies  for  it^  that  the 
war  debt  might  be  liquidated. 

He  steadily  and  earnestly  opposed  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  and  labored  with  all  his  powers  in  behalf  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso. 

TEN    YEARS    AT    HOME. 

In  the  National  Convention  of  1848,  of  which  he  was 
a  member,  he  advocated  the  nomination  of  General 
Taylor,  and  sustained  the  nomination  by  an  active  can 
vass  in  Illinois  and  Indiana. 

From  1849  to  1854  Mr.  Lincoln  was  engaged  assidu- 
ouslyjn  the  practice  of  his  profession,  and  being  deeply 
immersed  in  business,  was  beginning  to  lose  his  interest 
in  politics,  when  the  scheming  ambition  and  grovelling 
selfishness  of  an  unscrupulous  aspirant  to  the  Presi 
dency  brought  about  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.  That  act  of  baseness  and  perfidy  aroused 
him,  and  he  prepared  for  new  efforts.  He  threw  him 
self  at  once  into  the  contest  that  followed,  and  fought 
the  battle  of  freedom  on  the  ground  of  his  former  con 
flicts  in  Illinois  with  more  than  his  accustomed  energy 
and  zeal.  Those  who  recollect  the  tremendous  battle 
fought  in  Illinois  that  year,  will  award  to  Abraham 
Lincoln  fully  three  fourths  of  the  ability  and  unweary 
ing  labor  which  resulted  in  the  mighty  victory  which 
gave  Illinois  her  first  Republican  Legislature,  and 


62  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

placed  Lyman  Trumbull  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States. 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  the  editor  of  which  is  a  per 
sonal  friend  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  from  whom  we  gather 
many  of  the  facts  of  the  early  life  of  the  subject  of  this 
volume,  gives  the  following  graphic  sketches  of  the 
Illinois  Campaign  of  1854  : 

"  The  first  and  greatest  debate  of  that  year  came  off 
between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  at  Springfield,  during  the 
progress  of  the  State  Fair,  in  October.  We  remember 
the  event  as  vividly  as  though  it  transpired  yesterday, 
and  in  view  of  the  prominence  now  given  to  the  chief 
actor  in  that  exciting  event,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  in 
teresting  to  all. 

"  The  affair  came  off  on  the  fourth  day  of  October, 
1854.  The  State  Fair  had  been  in  progress  two  days, 
and  the  capital  was  full  of  all  manner  of  men.  The 
Nebraska  bill  had  been  passed  on  the  previous  twenty- 
second  of  May.  Mr.  Douglas  had  returned  to  Illinois 
to  meet  an  outraged  constituency.  He  had  made  a 
fragmentary  speech  in  Chicago,  the  people  filling  up 
each  hiatus  in  a  peculiar  and  good-humored  way.  He 
called  the  people  a  mob — they  called  him  a  rowdy. 
The  i  mob '  had  the  best  of  it,  both  then  and  at  the 
election  which  succeeded.  The  notoriety  of  all  these 
events  had  stirred  up  the  politics  of  the  State  from 
bottom  to  top.  Hundreds  of  politicians  had  met  at 
Springfield,  expecting  a  tournament  of  an  unusual 
character — Douglas,  Breese,  Kcerner,  Lincoln,  Trum 
bull,  Matteson,  Yates,  Codding,  John  Calhoun  (of  the 
order  of  the  candle-box),  John  M.  Palmer,  the  whole 
house  of  the  McConnells,  Singleton  (known  to  fame 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  63 

i 

in  the  Mormon  war),  Thomas  L.  Harris,  and  a  host  of 
others.  Several  speeches  were  made  before,  and  several 
after,  the  passage  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  but 
that  was  justly  held  to  be  the  event  of  the  season. 

"  We  do  not  remember  whether  a  challenge  to  de 
bate  passed  between  the  friends  of  the  speakers  or  not, 
but  there  was  a  perfectly  amicable  understanding  be 
tween  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  that  the  former  should 
speak  two  or  three  hours,  and  the  latter  reply  in  just 
as  little  or  as  much  time  as  he  chose.  Mr.  Lincoln 
took  the  stand  at  two  o'clock — a  large  crowd  in  atten 
dance,  and  Mr.  Douglas  seated  on  a  small  platform  in 
front  of  the  desk.  The  first  half-hour  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
speech  was  taken  up  with  compliments  to  his  distin 
guished  friend  Judge  Douglas,  and  dry  allusions  to  the 
political  events  of  the  past  few  years.  His  distin 
guished  friend,  Judge  Douglas,  had  taken  his  seat,  as 
solemn  as  the  Cock-Lane  ghost,  evidently  with  the  de 
sign  of  not  moving  a  muscle  till  it  came  his  turn  to 
speak.  The  laughter  provoked  by  Lincoln's  exordium, 
however,  soon  began  to  make  him  uneasy  ;  and  when 
Mr.  L.  arrived  at  his  (Douglas')  speech,  pronouncing 
the  Missouri  Compromise  ca  sacred  thing,  which  no 
ruthless  hand  would  ever  be  reckless  enough  to  disturb,' 
he  opened  his  lips  far  enough  to  remark,  (  A  first-rate 
speech!'  This  was  the  beginning  of  an  amusing  col 
loquy. 

"  '  Yes,'  continued  Mr.  Lincoln,  i  so  affectionate  was 
my  friend's  regard  for  this  compromise  line,  that  when 
Texas  was  admitted  into  the  Union,  and  it  was  found 
that  a  strip  extended  north  of  36°  30 7  he  actually  in- 


64  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

troduced  a  bill  extending  the  line  and  prohibiting  sla 
very  in  the  northern  edge  of  the  new  State/ 

"  i  And  you  voted  against  the  bill/  said  Douglas. 

"  '  Precisely  so/  replied  Lincoln;  i  I  was  in  favor  of 
running  the  line  a  great  deal  farther  South.' 

"  '  About  this  time/  the  speaker  continued,  c  my 
distinguished  friend  introduced  me  to  a  particular 
friend  of  his,  one  David  Wilmot  of  Pennsylvania/ 
(Laughter.) 

.     "  '  I  thought/  said  Douglas,  '  you  would  find  him 
congenial  company/ 

"  '  So  I  did/  replied  Lincoln.  1 1  had  the  pleasure  of 
voting  for  his  Proviso,  in  one  way  -and  another  about 
forty  times.  It  was  a  Democratic  measure  then,  I  be 
lieve.  At  any  rate,  General  Cass  scolded  Honest 
John  Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  soundly,  for  taking 
away  the  last  hours  of  the  session  so  that  he  (Cass) 
couldn't  crowd  it  through.  Apropos  of  General  Cass  : 
if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  he  has  a  prior  claim  to 
my  distinguished  friend,  to  the  authorship  of  Popular 
Sovereignty.  The  old  general,  has  an  infirmity  for 
writing  letters.  Shortly  after  the  scolding  he  gave 
John  Davis,  he  wrote  his  Nicholson  letter — ' 

"  Douglas  (solemnly) — <  God  Almighty  placed  man 
on  the  earth,  and  told  him  to  choose  between  good  and 
evil.  That  was  the  origin  of  the  Nebraska  bill !' 

"  Lincoln — ;  Well,  the  priority  of  invention  being 
settled,  let  us  award  all  credit  to  Judge  Douglas  for 
being  the  first  to  discover  it/ 

"  It  would  bo  impossible,  in  these  limits,  to  give  an 
idea  of  the  strength  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  argument.  We 
deemed  it  by  far  the  ablest  effort  of  the  campaign — from 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  65 

whatever  source.  The  occasion  was  a  great  one,  and 
the  speaker  was  every  way  equal  to  it.  The  effect  pro 
duced  on  the  listeners  was  magnetic.  No  one  who  was 
present  will  ever  forget  the  power  and  vehemence  of 
the  following  passage  : 

"  '  My  distinguished  friend  says  it  is  an  insult  to  the 
emigrants  to  Kansas  and  Nebraska  to  suppose  they 
are  not  able  to  govern  themselves.  We  must  not  slur 
over  an  argument  of  this  kind  because  it  happens  to 
tickle  the  ear.  It  must  be  met  and  answered.  I  ad 
mit  that  the  emigrant  to  Kansas  and  Nebraska  is  com 
petent  to  govern  himself,  but/  the  speaker  rising  to  his 
full  height,  i  I  deny  Ms  right  to  govern  any  other  person 
WITHOUT  THAT  PERSON'S  CONSENT/  The  applause 
which  followed  this  triumphant  refutation  of  a  cunning 
falsehood,  was  but  an  earnest  of  the  victory  at  the 
polls  which  followed  just  one  month  from  that  day. 

"  When  Mr.  Lincoln  had  concluded,  Mr.  Douglas 
strode  hastily  to  the  stand.  As  usual,  he  employed 
ten  minutes  in  telling  how  grossly  he  had  been  abused. 
Kecollecting  himself,  he  added,  <  though  in  a  perfectly 
courteous  manner ' — abused  in  a  perfectly  courteous 
manner!  He  then  devoted  half  an  hour  to  showing 
that  it  was  indispensably  necessary  to  California  emi 
grants,  Sante  Fe  traders  and  others,  to  have  organic 
acts  provided  for  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Ne 
braska — that  being  precisely  the  point  which  nobody 
disputed.  Having  established  this  premiss  to  his  satis- 
f action,  Mr.  Douglas  launched  forth  into  an  argument 
wholly  apart  from  the  positions  taken  by  Mr.  Lincoln. 
He  had  about  half  finished  at  six  o'clock,  when  an  ad 
journment  to  tea  was  effected.  The  speaker  insisted 


. 

66  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


strenuously  upon  his  right  to  resume  in  the  evening, 
but  we  believe  the  second  part  of  that  speech  has  not 
been  delivered  to  this  day.  After  the  Springfield  pas 
sage,  the  two  speakers  went  to  Peoria,  and  tried  it 
again,  with  identically  the  same  results.  A  friend, 
who  listened  to  the  Peoria  debate,  informed  us  that 
after  Lincoln  had  finished,  Douglas  '  hadn't  much  to 
say ' — which  we  presume  to  have  been  Mr.  Douglas' 
view  of  the  case  also,  for  the  reason  that  he  ran  away 
from  his  antagonist  and  kept  out  of  the  way  during 
the  remainder  of  the  campaign. 

"  During  this  exciting  campaign  Mr.  Lincoln  pressed 
the  slavery  issue  upon  the  people  of  Central  and  South 
ern  Illinois,  who  were  largely  made  up  of  the  emigra 
tion  from  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Virginia,  and  North 
Carolina,  with  all  the  powers  of  his  mind.  He  felt  the 
force  of  the  moral  causes  that  must  influence  the  ques 
tion,  and  he  never  failed  to  appeal  to  the  moral  senti 
ment  of  the  people  in  aid  of  the  argument  drawn  from 
political  sources,  and  to  illuminate  his  theme  with  the 
lofty  inspirations  of  an  eloquence,  pleading  for  the 
rights  of  humanity.  A  revolution  swept  the  State. 
For  the  first  time  a  majority  of  the  Legislature  of  Illi 
nois  was  opposed  to  the  Democratic  administration  of"~ 
the  federal  government.  A  United  States  Senator 
was  to  be  elected  in  place  of  General  Shields  who  had 
yielded  to  the  influence  of  his  less  scrupulous  colleague, 
and,  against  his  own  better  judgment,  had  voted  for  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  act.  The  election  came  on,  and  a 
number  of  ballots  were  taken,  the  almost  united  oppo 
sition  voting  steadily  for  Lincoln,  but  the  anti-Nebras 
ka  Democrats  for  Trumbull.  Mr.  Lincoln  became  ap- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  67 

prehensive  that  those  men  who  had  been  elected  as 
Democrats,  though  opposed  to  Judge  Douglas,  would 
turn  upon  some  third  candidate,  of  less  decided  convic 
tions  than  Judge  Trumbull,  and  possibly  elect  a  Sena 
tor  who  had  little  or  nothing  in  common  with  the  then, 
inchoate  ^Republican  party.  To  prevent  such  a  con 
summation,  he  went  personally  to  his  friends,  and  by 
strong  persuasion,  induced  them  to  vote  for  Trumbull. 

"  He  thus  secured,  by  an  act  of  generous  self-sacri 
fice,  a  triumph  for  the  cause  of  right,  and  an  advocate 
of  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  not  inferior,  in  earnest 
zeal  for  the  principles  of  Kepublicanism,  to  any  mem 
ber  of  that  body. 

"  Some  of  his  friends  on  the  floor  of  the  Legislature 
wept  like  children  when  constrained  by  Mr.  Lincoln's 
personal  appeals  to  desert  him  and  unite  on  Trumbull. 
It  is  proper  to  say  in  this  connection,  that  between 
Trumbull  and  Lincoln  the  most  cordial  relations  have 
always  existed,  and  that  the  feeling  of  envy  or  rivalry 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  breast  of  either." 

At  the  Peoria  debate  alluded  to  above,  the  arrange 
ment  was  that  Douglas  should  speak  as  long  as  he 
pleased,  then  that  Lincoln  should  do  -the  same,  and  that 
Douglas  should  have  an  hour  to  close.  Douglas  com 
menced  at  2  o'clock  and  spoke  till  six,  wearing  away 
the  time  in  a  tedious  speech,  hoping  that  the  farmers, 
who  had  come  in  from  the  country,  would  not  stay  to 
hear  Mr.  Lincoln's  reply.  As  soon  as  Douglas  had 
concluded  his  speech,  the  vast  crowd  who  had  patiently 
listened  to  him  divided,  the  Democrats  at  once  leaving 
in  great  numbers  for  the  country,  while  the  Whigs  and 
Free-Soilers  remained  and  loudly  called  for  Lincoln. 


- 
68  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


Mr.  L.,  nothing  vexed  by  the  consumption  by  Douglas 
of  the  whole  afternoon,  when  no  one  expected  that  he 
would  occupy  more  than  an  hour  and  a  half  or  two 
hours,  proposed  that  the  crowd  adjourn  for  tea,  which 
they  very  reluctantly  did.  After  half  an  hour  the  crowd 
again  assembled,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  took  the  stand,  and 
for  three  hours  continued  to  entrance  his  hearers  by  ir 
resistible  logic  and  strains  of  eloquence  never  before  ex 
celled  in  any  of  his  public  efforts.  The  whole  territo 
rial  history  of  the  country  was  reviewed,  and  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  then  recently  passed,  was  dissected 
in  a  manner  such  as  has  never  been  surpassed  in  the 
halls  of  Congress.  Never  since,  in  all  the  discus 
sions,  innumerable  and  interminable,  of  that  subject  in 
the  intervening  six  years,  have  the  inconsistencies  of 
Judge  Douglas  been  shown  up  as  they  were  then,  but 
all  in  the  utmost  good  nature.  Since  then  Douglas  has 
invented  new  subterfuges,  but  before  that  audience,  all 
his  political  tricks  and  dodges  in  connection  with  that 
bill  were  thoroughly  exposed. 

About  half-past  nine,  Douglas  rose  to  take  his  hour. 
It  was  evident  he  had  no  heart  for  the  undertaking. 
He  beat  a  most  handsome  retreat.  He  complained  of 
his  voice,  which  he  said  would  not  permit  of  his  oc 
cupying  his  hour  ;  he  complimented  the  city  of  Peoria 
— the  intelligence  of  its  citizens,  and  the  natural  beaut^ 
of  its  location,  which,  of  course,  brought  down  cheers 
for  him  ;  he  complimented  Lincoln  ;  he  spoke  of  the 
fact  that  in  the  cemetery  adjacent  to  the  city  rested 
the  remains  of  the  lamented  Governor  Ford — in  short, 
he  devoted  a  quarter  of  an  hour  to  putting  the  au 
dience  in  good  humor  with  him,  and  then,  without  at- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  69 

tempting  a  reply  to  his  antagonist's  crushing  argu 
ments,  bid  his  audience  good  night. 

Mr.  Lincoln  expected  to  meet  Mr.  Douglas  next  at 
Lacon,  or  Henry,  north  of  Peoria,  on  the  Illinois 
river  ;  but  the  "  Little  Giant"  had  had  enough  of 
"  Old  Abe"  that  year,  and  did  not  give  the  latter  an 
other  opportunity  of  meeting  him  during  'the  season. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  offered  the  nomination  for  Gover 
nor  by  the  Anti-Nebraska  (the  future  Kepublican) 
party  in  1854  ;  but  he  told  his  friends,  "  No — I  am 
not  the  man  ;  Bissell  will  make  a  better  Governor 
than  I,  and  you  can  elect  him  on  account  of  his  Demo 
cratic  antecedents."  So,  giving  to  Bissell  the  flag  it 
was  universally  desired  that  he  should  bear,  he  himself 
took  the  sword,  and  hewed  a  way  for  the  triumph  of 
that  year. 


70  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


PAKT    T  HIED. 


THE  GREAT  SENATORIAL  CONTEST. 

IN  the  summer  of  1858,  the  great  Senatorial  contest 
of  Illinois  took  place  between  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  other.  The  rebellion  of 
Mr.  Douglas  in  the  U.  S.  Senate  against  the  adminis 
tration — his  refusal  to  assist  in  the  perpetration  of  the 
Lecompton  fraud,  insured  him  the  enmity  of  the  ad 
ministration  ;  but  in  spite  of  this,  his  position  gave 
him  immense  strength  both  in  and  outside  of  Illinois. 
Prominent  [Republicans  in  other  States  were  disposed 
to  see  him  returned  to  the  Senate  as  a  rebuke  to  the 
administration,  vainly  hoping  that  Mr.  D.  would  aban 
don  the  Democratic  party.  Mr.  Crittenden  wrote  a 
letter  advising  the  Americans  or  old  Whigs  of  Illinois 
to  vote  for  Douglas,  and  in  consequence  of  this  outside 
pressure  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Douglas  was 
stronger  by  ten  thousand  votes  as  a  rebel,  than  he 
would  have  been  as  an  administration  favorite. 

All  who  know  anything  at  all  of  Mr.  Douglas  are 
aware  that  as  a  political  debater,  either  on  the  stump 
or  on  the  Senate  floor,  he  has  no  superior,  if  he  has  an 
equal,  in  the  country.  It  was,  then,  no  light  matter 
to  contest  the  State  of  Illinois  with  such  a  man  as  Mr. 
Douglas,  and  especially  under  the  circumstances,  when 
the  masses  of  the  people  sympathized  with  Mr.  D.  in 
his  quarrel  with  the  administration. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  71 

A  Republican  State  Convention  met  at  Springfield, 
Illinois,  June  2,  1858,  and  put  Mr.  Lincoln  in  nomina 
tion  as  the  Republican  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator.  The  Convention  also  adopted  the  subjoined 
platform  : 

THE    ILLINOIS   PLATFORM. 

"  We,  the  Republicans  of  Illinois,  in  Convention 
assembled,  in  addition  to  our  previous  affirmations, 
make  the  following  declaration  of  our  principles  : 

"  1.  We  reaffirm  our  devotion  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  country,  and  to  the  union  of  the  States,  and  will 
steadily  resist  all  attempts  for  the  perversion  of  the  one 
and  the  disruption  of  the  other.  *  We  recognize  the 
equal  rights  of  all  the  States,  and  avow  our  readiness 
and  willingness  to  maintain  them  ;  and  disclaim  all 
intention  of  attempting,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  assail  or  abridge  the  rights  of  any  of  the  members  of 
the  confederacy  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  or  in 
any  manner  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  the  States  where  it  exists.  Nevertheless,  we  hold 
that  the  government  was  instituted  for  freemen,  and 
that  it  can  be  perpetuated,  and  made  to  fulfil  the  pur 
poses  of  its  organization  only  by  devoting  itself  to  the 
promotion  of  virtue  and  intelligence  among  its  citizens, 
and  the  advancement  of  their  prosperity  and  happiness  ; 
and  to  these  ends,  we  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  gov 
ernment  so  to  reform  the  system  of  disposing  of  the 
public  lands  as  to  secure  the  soil  to  actual  settlers,  and 
wrest  it  from  the  grasp  of  men  who  speculate  in  the 
homes  of  the  people,  and  from  corporations  that  lock 
it  up  in  dead  hands  for  enhanced  profits. 

"  2.  Free  labor  being  the  only  true  support  of  repub 
lican  institutions,  our  government  should  maintain  its 
rights  ;  and  we  therefore  demand  the  improvement  of 
our  harbors  and  rivers  which  freight  the  commerce  of 
the  West  to  a  market,  and  the  construction  of  a  central 


72  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

highway,  to  connect  our  trade  with  the  Pacific  'States, 
as  rightful  encouragement  to  home  industry  ;  and,  in 
asmuch  as  we  now  compete  in  the  markets  of  the  whole 
country  against  the  products  of  unpaid  labor,  at  depre 
ciating  prices,  it  is  therefore  eminently  unjust  that  the 
National  Administration  should  attempt,  by  coercion, 
to  extend  a  servile  system  in  the  territories,  or,  hy  pa 
tronage,  to  perpetuate  slavery  in  the  States. 

"  3.  The  present  administration  has  proved  recreant 
to  the  trusts  committed  to  its  hands,  and  by  its  extra 
ordinary,  corrupt,  unjust,  and  undignified,  exertions, 
to  give  effect  to  the  original  intention  and  purpose  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  by  forcing  upon  the  people 
of  Kansas,  against  their  will,  and  in  defiance  Of  their 
known  and  earnestly-expressed  wishes,  a  constitution 
recognizing  slavery  as  one  of  their  domestic  institutions, 
it  has  forfeited  all  claim  to  the  support  of  the  friends 
of  free  men,  free  labor,  and  equal  rights. 

"4.  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  faithfully  and 
diligently  to  execute  all  our  treaty  stipulations,  and  to 
enforce  all  our  laws  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave- 
trade. 

"  5.  While  we  deprecate  all  interference  on  the 
part  of  political  organizations  with  the  action  of  the 
Judiciary,  if  such  action  is  limited  to  its  appropriate 
sphere,  yet  we  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  our  con 
demnation  of  the  principles  and  tendencies  of  the  extra 
judicial  opinions  of  a  majority  of  the  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  matter  of 
Dred  Scott,  wherein  the  political  heresy  is  put  forth, 
that  the  Federal  Constitution  extends  slavery  into  all 
the  territories  of  the  Kepublic,  and  so  maintains  it  that 
neither  Congress  nor  people,  through  their  territorial 
legislature,  can  by  law  abolish  it.  We  hold  that  Con 
gress  possesses  sovereign  power  over  the  territories 
while  they  remain  in  a  territorial  condition  ;  and  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  general  government  to  protect  the 
territories  from  the  curse  of  slavery,  and  to  preserve 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  73 

the  public  domain  for  the  occupation  of  free  men  and 
free  labor.  And  we  declare  that  no  power  on  earth  can 
carry  and  maintain  slavery  in  the  States  against  the 
will  of  the  people  and  the  provisions  of  their  constitu 
tions  and  laws  ;  and  we  fully  endorse  the  recent  decis 
ion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  our  own  State,  which 
declares,  "  that  property  in  persons  is  repugnant  to  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  Illinois,  and  that  all  persons 
within  its  jurisdiction  are  supposed  to  be  free  ;  and 
that  slavery,  where  it  exists,  is  a  municipal  regulation, 
without  any  extra-territorial  operation. 

"  6.  The  policy  of  this  government  should  be,  to  live 
on  terms  of  peace  and  amity  with  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  so  far  as  it  can  be  done  consistently  with  our 
national  honor  and  interest,  and  to  enter  into  entang 
ling  alliances  with  none.  Our  intercourse  with  other 
nations  should  be  conducted  upon  principles  of  exact 
and  exalted  justice  ;  and  while  firmly  maintaining  our 
own  rights,  we  should  carefully  avoid  any  invasion  of 
the  rights  of  others,  and  especially  those  of  weaker  na 
tions.  Our  eommerce  ought  to  be  protected  from  wan 
ton  interruption,  and  our  commercial  marine  from 
invasion  and  search  ;  and  while  we  would  deplore  the 
necessity  of  war  with  any  of  the  nations  of  the-  earth, 
we  will  still  firmly,  zealously,  and  patriotically,  sustain 
the  government  in  any  just  measures  which  it  may  so 
adopt,  to  obtain  redress  for  indignities  wh^ich  may  here 
tofore  have  been  inflicted  upon  our  citizens  navigating 
the  seas,  or  which  may  be  necessary  to  secure  them 
against  a  repetition  of  like  injuries  in  the  future. 

"  7.  We  view,  with  regret  and  alarm,  the  rapidly- 
increasing  expenditures  of  the  general  government, 
which  now,  in  a  state  of  profound  peace,  threaten  the 
country  with  national  bankruptcy  ;  and  we  pledge  our 
selves,  so  far  as  we  speak  for  the  Republicans  of  Illinois, 
to  a  thorough  and  radical  reform  in  the  administration 
of  the  government  finances,  in  the  event  that  the  Repub 
licans  are  intrusted  with  the  care  of  national  affairs." 


74  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

Mr.  Lincoln  delivered  an  able  speech  to  the  Conven 
tion,  which  might  be  said  to  open  the  campaign. 

On  the  24th  of  July,  Mr.  Lincoln  initiated  the  cor 
respondence  which  follows,  by  sending  the  letter  which 
is  the  first  of  the  series  : 

DOUGLAS   AND   LINCOLN    CORRESPONDENCE. 
Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  July  24,  1858. 
Hon.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS  : 

My  Dear  Sir — Will  it  be  agreeable  to  you  to  make 
an  arrangement  for  you  and  myself  to  divide  time,  and 
address  the  same  audiences  the  present  canvass  ?  Mr. 
Judd,  who  will  hand  you  this,  is  authorized  to  receive 
your  answer  ;  and,  if  agreeable  to  you,  to  enter  into 
the  terms  of  such  arrangement. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

CHICAGO,  July  24,  1858. 
Hon.  A.  LINCOLN  : 

Dear  Sir — Your  note  of  this  date,  in  which  you  in 
quire  if  it  would  be  agreeable  to  me  to  make  an 
arrangement  to  divide  the  time  and  address  the  same 
audiences  during  the  present  canvass,  was  handed  me 
by  Mr.  Judd.  Kecent  events  have  interposed  difficul 
ties  in  the  way  of  such  an  arrangement . 

I  went  to  Springfield  last  week  for  the  purpose  of 
conferring  with  the  Democratic  State  Central  Com 
mittee  upon  the  mode  of  conducting  the  canvass,  and 
with  them,  and  under  their  advice,  made  a  list  of  ap 
pointments  covering  the  entire  period  until  late  in  Oc 
tober.  The  people  of  the  several  localities  have  been 
notified  of  the  times  and  places  of  the  meetings.  These 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  75 

appointments  have  all  been  made  for  Democratic  meet 
ings,  and  arrangements  have  been  made  by  which  the 
Democratic  candidates  for  Congress,  for  the  Legisla 
ture,  and  other  offices,  will  be  present  and  address  the 
people.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  these  various 
candidates,  in  connection  with  myself,  will  occupy  the 
whole  time  of  the  day  and  evening,  and  leave  no  oppor 
tunity  for  other  speeches. 

Besides,  there  is  another  consideration  which  should 
be  kept  in  mind.  It  has  been  suggested,  recently,  that 
an  arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring  out  a  third 
candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  who,  with 
yourself,  should  canvass  the  State  in  opposition  to  me, 
with  no  other  purpose  than  to  insure  my  defeat,  by  di 
viding  the  Democratic  party  for  your  benefit.  If  I 
should  make  this  arrangement  with  you,  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  this  other  candidate,  who  has  a 
common  object  with  you,  would  desire  to  become  a 
party  to  it,  and  claim  the  right  to  speak  from  the  same 
stand  ;  so  that  he  and  you,  in  concert,  might  be  able 
to  take  the  opening  and  closing  speech  in  every  case. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  surprise,  if  it 
was  your  original  intention  to  invite  such  an  arrange 
ment,  that  you  should  have  waited  until  after  I  had 
made  my  appointments,  inasmuch  as  we  were  both  here 
in  Chicago  together  for  several  days  after  my  arrival, 
and  again  at  Bloomington,  Atlanta,  Lincoln,  and 
Springfield,  where  it  was  well  known  I  went  for  the 
purpose  of  consulting  with  the  State  Central  Com 
mittee,  and  agreeing  upon  the  plan  of  the  campaign. 

While,  under  these  circumstances,  I  do  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  make  any  arrangements  which  would  deprive 
the  Democratic  candidates  for  Congress,  State  officers, 
and  the  Legislature,  from  participating  in  the  discus 
sion  at  the  various  meetings  designated  by  the  Demo 
cratic  State  Central  Committee,  I  will,  in  order  to  ac 
commodate  you,  as  far  as  it  is  in  my  power  to  do  so, 
take  the  responsibility  of  making  an  arrangement  with 


76  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

\ 

you  for  a  discussion  between  us  at  one  prominent  point 
in  each  Congressional  District  in  the  State,  except  the 
second  and  sixth  districts,  where  we  have  both  spoken, 
and  in  each  of  which  cases  you  had  the  concluding 
speech.  If  agreeable  to  you,  I  will  indicate  the  fol 
lowing  places  as  those  most  suitable  in  the  several  Con 
gressional  Districts,  at  which  we  should  speak,  to  wit : 
Freeport,  Ottawa,  Galesburgh,  Quincy,  Alton,  Joncs- 
boro',  and  Charleston.  I  will  confer  with  you  at  the 
earliest  convenient  opportunity  in  regard  to  the  mode 
of  conducting  the  debate,  the  times  of  meeting  at  the 
several  places,  subject  to  the  condition,  that  where  ap 
pointments  have  already  been  made  by  the  Democratic 
State  Central  Committee  at  any  of  those  places,  I  must 
insist  upon  your  meeting  me  at  the  time  specified. 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

SPRINGFIELD,  July  29;  1858. 
Hon.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  24th,  in  relation  to  an 
arrangement  to  divide  time,  and  address  the  same  au 
diences,  is  received  ;  and,  in  apology  for  not  sooner  re 
plying,  allow  me  to  say,  that  when  I  sat  by  you  at 
dinner  yesterday,  I  was  not  aware  that  you  had  an 
swered  my  note,  nor,  certainly,  that  my  own  note  had 
been  presented  to  you.  An  hour  after,  I  saw  a  copy  of 
your  answer  in  the  Chicago  Times,  and,  reaching  home, 
I  found  the  original  awaiting  me.  Protesting  that 
your  insinuations  of  attempted  unfairness  on  my  part 
are  unjust,  and  with  the  hope  that  you  did  not  very 
considerately  make  them,  I  proceed  to  reply.  To  your 
statement  that  "  It  has  been  suggested,  recently,  that  an 
arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring  out  a  third  Candi 
da!  o  for  the  U.  S.  Senate,  who,  with  yourself,  should 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  77 

canvass  the  State  in  opposition  to  me,"  etc.,  I  can  only 
say,  that  such  suggestion  must  have  been  made  by 
yourself,  for  certainly  none  such  has  been  made  by  or 
to  me,  or  otherwise,  to  my  knowledge.  Surely  you  did 
not  deliberately  conclude,  as  you  insinuate,  that  I  was 
expecting  to  draw  you  into  an  arrangement  of  terms, 
to  be  agreed  on  by  yourself,  by  which  a  third  candidate 
and  myself,  "  in  concert,  might  be  able  to  take  the  open 
ing  and  closing  speech  in  every  case." 

As  to  your  surprise  that  I  did  not  sooner  make  the 
proposal  to  divide  time  with  you,  I  can  only  say,  I  made 
it  as  soon  as  I  resolved  to  make  it.  I  did  not  know  but 
that  such  proposal  would  come  from  you  ;  I  waited, 
respectfully,  to  see.  It  may  have  been  well  known  to 
you  that  you  went  to  Springfield  for  the  purpose  of 
agreeing  on  the  plan  of  campaign  ;  but  it  was  not  so 
known  to  me.  When  your  appointments  were  an 
nounced  in  the  papers,  extending  only  to  the  21st  of 
August,  I,  for  the  first  time,  considered  it  certain  that 
you  would  make  no  proposal  to  me,  and  then  resolved 
that,  if  my  friends  concurred,  I  would  make  one  to 
you.  As  soon  thereafter  as  I  could  see  and  consult 
with  friends  satisfactorily,  I  did  make  the  proposal.  It 
did  not  occur  to  me  that  the  proposed  arrangement 
could  derange  your  plans  after  the  latest  of  your  ap 
pointments  already  made.  After  that,  there  was,  before 
the  election,  largely  over  two  months  of  clear  time. 

For  you  to  say  that  we  have  already  spoken  at  Chi 
cago  and  Springfield,  and  that  on  both  occasions  I  had 
the  concluding  speech,  is  hardly  a  fair  statement.  The 
truth  rather  is  this  :  At  Chicago,  July  9th,  you  made 
a  carefully-prepared  conclusion  on  my  speech  of  June 
16th.  Twenty-four  hours  after,  I  made  a  hasty  conclu 
sion  on  yours  of  the  9th.  You  had  six  days  to  pre 
pare,  and  concluded  on  me  again  at  Bloomington  on 
the  16th.  Twenty-four  hours  after  I  concluded  again 
on  you  at  Springfield.  In  the  meantime,  you  had 
made  another  conclusion  on  me  at  Springfield,  which  I 


78  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

did  not  hear,  and  of  the  contents  of  which  I  knew 
nothing  when  I  spoke  ;  so  that  your  speech  made  in 
daylight,  and  mine  at  night,  on  the  17th,  at  Spring 
field,  were  both  made  in  perfect  independence  of  each 
other.  The  dates  of  making  all  these  speeches  will 
show,  I  think,  that  in  the  matter  of  time  for  prepara 
tion,  the  advantage  has  been  all  on  your  side  ;  and  that 
none  of  the  external  circumstances  has  stood  to  my 
advantage. 

I  agree  to  an  arrangement  for  us  to  speak  at  the 
seven  places  you  have  named,  and  at  your  own  times, 
provided  you  name  the  times  at  once,  so  that  I,  as  well 
as  you,  can  have  to  myself  the  time  not  covered  by  the 
arrangement.  As  to  the  other  details,  I  wish  perfect 
reciprocity,  and  no  more.  I  wish  as  much  time  as 
you,  and  that  conclusions  shall  alternate.  That  is  all. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

P.  S.  As  matters  now  stand,  I  shall  be  at  no  more 
of  your  exclusive  meetings  ;  and  for  about  a  week  from 
to-day  a  letter  from  you  will  reach  me  at  Springfield. 

A.  L. 


Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

BEMENT,  PIATT  Co.,  ILL.,  July  30,  1858. 

Dear  Sir — Your  letter,  dated  yesterday,  accepting 
my  proposition  for  a  joint  discussion  at  one  prominent 
point  in  each  ^Congressional  District,  as  stated  in  my 
previous  letter,  was  received  this  morning. 

The  times  and  places  designated  are  as  follows : 

Ottawa,  La  Salle  county August  21st,  18  8. 

Freeport,  Stephenson  county "  127th, 

Joneeboro,  Union   county September  15th, 

Charleston,  Coles  county "  18th, 

Galesburgh,  Knox  county October  7th, 

Quincy,  Adams  county "  13th, 

Alton,  Madison  county ' "  15th, 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  79 

I  agree  to  your  suggestion  that  we  shall  alternately 
open  and  close  the  discussion.  I  will  speak  at  Ottawa 
one  hour,  you  can  reply,  occnpying  an  hour  and  a  half, 
and  I  will  then  follow  for  half  an  hour.  At  Freeport, 
you  shall  open  the  discussion  and  speak  one  hour,  I 
will  follow  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  you  can  then 
reply  for  half  an  hour.  We  will  alternate  in  like  man 
ner  at  each  successive  place. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

Hon.  A.  LINCOLN,  Springfield,  111. 


[Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas.] 

SPRINGFIELD,  July  31,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS  :  Dear  Sir — Yours  of  yester 
day,  naming  places,  times,  and  terms,  for  joint  discus 
sions  between  us,  was  received  this  morning.  Although, 
by  the  terms,  as  you  propose,  you  take  four  openings 
and  closes,  to  my  three,  I  accede,  and  thus  close  the 
arrangement.  I  direct  this  to  you  at  Hillsboro,  and 
shall  try  to  have  both  your  letter  and  this  appear  in 
the  Journal  and  ^Register  of  Monday  morning. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

Of  the  joint  debates  which  followed  this  correspond 
ence  the  press  of  the  entire  country  has  spoken,  and  it 
is  the  highest  praise  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  say,  as  the  press 
everywhere  said,  that  he  held  his  ground  in  every  en 
counter  with  Mr.  Douglas,  as  a  debater  and  as  an 
orator.  He  had  truth  on  his  side  to  be  sure,  which  is 
always  a  great  advantage,  but  neither  in  repartee  nor  in 
argument  did  Mr.  Douglas  for  once  confuse  or  confute 
his  opponent.  An  Illinois  correspondent  of  a  Boston 
journal,  said  to  be  the  President  of  an  Illinois  College, 


80  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

wrote,  after  witnessing  the  joint  debate  at  Galesburgh, 
as  follows  : 

"  The  men  are  entirely  dissimilar.  Mr.  Douglas  is  a 
thick-set,  finely-built,  courageous  man,  and  has  an  air 
of  self-confidence  that  does  not  a  little  to  inspire  his 
supporters  with  hope.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  tall,  lank  man, 
awkward,  apparently  diffident,  and  when  not  speaking 
has  neither  firmness  in  his  countenance  nor  fire  in  his 
eye.  *  *  * 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  has  a  rich,  silvery  voice,  enunciates 
with  great  distinctness,  and  has  a  fine  command  of 
language.  He  commenced  by  a  review  .of  the  points 
Mr.  Douglas  had  made.  In  this  he  showed  great  tact, 
and  his  retorts,  though  gentlemanly,  were  sharp,  and 
reached  to  the  core  the  subject  in  dispute.  While  he 
gave  but  little  time  to  the  work  of.  review,  we  did  not 
feel  that  anything  was  omitted  which  deserved  atten 
tion. 

"  He  then  proceeded  to  defend  the  [Republican  party. 
Here  he  charged  Mr.  Douglas  with  doing  nothing  for 
freedom  ;  with  disregarding  the  rights  and  interests  of 
the  colored  man  ;  and  for  about  forty  minutes  he  spoke 
with  a  power  that  we  have  seldom  heard  equalled. 
There  was  a  grandeur  in  his  thoughts,  a  comprehen 
siveness  in  his  arguments,  and  a  binding  force  in  his 
conclusions,  which  were  perfectly  irresistible.  The 
vast  throng  were  silent  as  death  ;  every  eye  was  fixed 
upon  the  speaker,  and  all  gave  him  serious  attention. 
He  was  the  tall  man  eloquent ;  his  countenance  glowed 
with  animation,  and  his  eye  glistened  with  an  intelli 
gence  that  made  it  lustrous.  He  was  no  longer 
awkward  and  ungainly  ;  but  graceful,  bold,  command 
ing. 

"  Mr.  Douglas  had  been  quietly  smoking  up  to  this 
time  ;  but  here  he  forgot  .his  cigar  and  listened  with 
anxious  attention.  When  he  rose  to  reply  he  appeared 
excited,  disturbed,  and  his  second  effort  seemed  to  us 
vastly  inferior  to  his  first.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  given  him 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  81 

a  great  task,  and  Mr.  Douglas  had  not  time  to  answer 
him,  even  if  he  had  the  ability." 

THE    DEBATES. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the  evening  before  the  Freeport 
debate,  upon  informing  a  few  of  his  friends  of  the 
queries  he  was  going  to  put  to  Mr.  Douglas  (including 
that,  in  reference  to  the  power  of  the  territorial  legisla 
ture,  notwithstanding  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  to  ex 
clude  slavery),  was  told  by  his  friends  that  if  he  cornered 
Douglas  on  that  question,  the  latter  would  surely 
"  take  the  bull  by  the  horns/'  and,  making  a  virtue  of 
necessity,  assert  his  Squatter  Sovereignty  in  defiance 
of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  ;  "  and  that,"  remarked  Mr. 
L/s  friends,  "  will  make  him  Senator."  "  That  may 
be,"  said  Lincoln,  and  his  large  gray  eye  twinkled  ; 
"  but  if  he  takes  that  shoot,  HE  never  can  be  President." 
All  that  has  transpired  since  has  but  justified  Mr.  L/s 
prediction.  The  Eepublicans,  after  the  Supreme  Court 
had  made  their  decision,  and  Douglas  had  unreservedly 
endorsed  it,  saw  the  advantage  they  had  over  the 
Democrats  in  the  canvass,  for  they  could  quote  Dred 
Scott  as  a  knock-down  argument  against  Popular 
Sovereignty.  Mr.  Douglas,  too,  saw  this,  and  said 
very  little  in  his  first  speeches  about  popular  sover 
eignty,  but  assumed  the  offensive,  and  attacked  the 
Kepublican  party,  charging  it  with  negro  equality,  &c. 
If  he  could  have  got  through  with  that  canvass  with 
out  expressing  his  opinion  as  to  the  power  of  a  territo 
rial  legislature  over  the  subject  of  slavery — which 
opinion  he  had  sedulously  avoided  expressing  during 
all  the  Lecompton  controversy  in  the  Senate — he  un- 

4* 


82  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

doubtedly  could  now  have  been  able  to  reconcile  all 
other  differences  of  opinion  between  himself  and  the 
Southern  Democracy.  But  Mr.  Lincoln's  logical  mind 
was  more  eager  to  probe  this  gigantic  sophistry,  with 
which  the  American  public  were  being  cheated,  than  to 
be  Senator.  So;  while  Douglas  was  making  ad  captan- 
dum  appeals  to  the  prejudices  of  the  people,  Lincoln 
was  weaving  around  him,  slowly  but  surely,  the  web  in 
which,  at  Freeport,  he  became  entangled,  and  from 
which  he  has  ever  since  been  vainly  endeavoring  to  ex 
tricate  himself. 

Of  this  great  contest  the  Philadelphia  North  Amer 
ican,  always  conservative  and  cautious,  remarks  : 

"  Stephen  A.  Douglas  had  ten  times  his  education. 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  mostly  engaged  in  his  profession,  mas 
tered  amidst  great  discouragements,  but  practised  with 
ominent  success.  He  had  some  experience,  however, 
as  a  general  politician,  besides  serving  for  a  while  in 
the  Illinois  Legislature,  and  for  two  years  in  Congress. 
Mr.  Douglas,  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  of  great  native 
force,  and  possessing  ten  times  the  scholastic  training 
of  his  rival,  had  been  for  full  fifteen  years  in  the  very 
heart  of  national  politics.  Indeed,  he  is  the  strongest 
among  the  representatives  of  democracy  under  its 
northern  phase,  and  we  doubt  if  Toombs,  Stephens, 
Benjamin,  or  Davis,  bright  luminaries  of  its  southern 
hemisphere,  can  rank  at  all  before  him. 

"  With  all  these  differences  in  political  and  other 
education,  in  a  State  that  has  been  -democratic  ever 
since  its  admission  into  the  £  happy  family/  and  in  op 
position  to  a  popular  dogma,  Lincoln  stumped  Illinois 
against  Douglas,  and  carried  it.  The  speeches  on  both 
sides  were  many  and  able. 

"  Lincoln  was,  on  several  occasions,  partly  foiled  or, 
at  least,  badly  bothered.  In  most  cases  it  seemed  to 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  83 

be,  so  far  as  regarded  strength  and  skill,  a  drawn  bat- 
lie.  In  more  than  one  instance  he  floored  the  '  little 
giant '  flatly  and  fairly.  We  consider  it,  on  the  whole, 
an  equal  fight.  Lincoln  showed  as  much  knowledge, 
and  as  much  logic,  with  more  wit,  good  humor,  and 
courtesy.  Douglas,  while  more  rough  and  overbearing, 
was  also  much  superior  in  a  certain  force,  directness 
and  determination.  But  it  was  about  an  equal  match 
in  ability.  As  for  the  result,  Douglas  carried  the  legis 
lature,  and  Lincoln  took  the  popular  vote,  as  he  can 
do  again.  Such  is  the  man  whom  democracy  will  now 
endeavor  to  decry — the  man  who  matched,  and  fully 
matched,  their  foremost  champion.  Both  of  them  are 
self-made  men  ;  both  of  them  are  very  able  ;  both 
sprang  from  obscurity  to  distinction  ;  both  belong  to 
the  common  people  ;  and  both  will  be  found  to  be 
strong  with  the  masses.  We  would  advise  democracy, 
not  for  its  own  sake,  but  for  ours,  to  go  on  ridiculing 
Abraham  Lincoln  for  having  once  mauled  logs,  and  de 
scribing  him  as  a  third-rate  man.  These  little  pop- 
funs  will  soon  be  silenced  by  the  roar  of  the  popular 
aixhans." 

Mr.  Greeley  says : 

u  I  tell  you,  the  man  who  stumps  a  State  with  Ste 
phen  A.  Douglas,  and  meets  him,  day  after  day,  before 
the  people,  has  got  to  be  no  fdol.  Many  a  man  will 
make  a  better  first  speech  than  Douglas,  but,  giving 
and  taking,  back  and  forward,  he  is  very  sharp.  Now, 
the  man  who  went  through  the  State,  speaking  against 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  and  was  not  beaten,  as  no  man 
says  he  was,  is  not  a  common  man ;  for  no  common 
man  will  answer  for  that  work  ;  and  at  the  end  of  that 
cumpaign  Mr.  Lincoln  came  out  with  4,000  majority 
on  the  popular  vote,  although  Mr.  Buchanan  had  beaten 
Fremont  9,000,  and  the  general  feeling  outside  of  the 
State  was  that  Douglas  had  better  be  elected.  Mr. 
Oittenden  wrote  a  letter  which  elected  Douglas ;  he 


84  LIFE      AND      SPEECHES     OF 

said  that  it  was  better  that  Douglas  should  be  elected, 
and  there  were  30,000  Americans  there  ;  I  don't  be-* 
lieve  we  have  got  another  man  living  who  would  have 
fought  through  that  campaign  so  effectively  and  at  the 
same  time  so  good-naturedly  as  he  did.  Mr.  Trumbull 
would  have  begun  a  little  ranker,  but  one  or  the  other 
would  soon  have  been  knocked  off  the  platform.  Mr. 
Lincoln  went  through  with  perfect  good  nature  and  en 
tire  suavity,  and  beat  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  it  being 
the  first  time  any  man  on  our  side  ever  carried  that 
State."  , 

In  a  recent  debate  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  Senator  Benjamin,  one  of  the  ablest  men  in  the 
Senate  and  the  finest  orator,  took  up  the  debates  be 
tween  Mr.  Douglas  and  Mr.  Lincoln  for  examination, 
and  though  the  vehement  enemy  of  Kepublicans  and 
Kepublicanisrn,  he  complimented  Mr.  Lincoln  very 
highly.  Said  Mr.  Benjamin  : 

' "  Here,  Mr.  President,  let  me  come  back  to  an  ex 
planation  of  that  fact  which  I  spoke  of  before,  and  to 
which  I  asked  the  attention  of  the  Senate  and  the 
country.  There  stands  the  explanation  of  the  sudden 
change  that  has  been  wrought  in  the  relations  of  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  with  the  rest  of  the  Democratic 
party.  It  was  when,  in  the  year  1858,  the  year  follow 
ing  this  decision,  pressed  by  a  canvass  at  home,  eager 
to  return  to  the  Senate,  he  joined  in  canvassing  the 
State  of  Illinois  with  the  gentleman  who  is  now  the 
candidate  of  the  Black  ^Republican  party  for  the  Pres 
idency.  Pressed  in  different  portions  of  the  State 
with  this  very  argument,  that  he  had  agreed  to  leave 
the  question  to  the  court,  that  the  court  had  decided  it 
in  favor  of  the  South,  and  that,  therefore,  under  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  slavery  was  fixed  in  all  the  ter 
ritories  of  the  United  States — finding  himself  going 
down  in  Illinois,  in  that  canvass,  he  backed  out  from 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  85 

his  promise,  and  directly  told  the  people  of  his  State 
that,  whether  it  had  been  decided  or  not,  and  no  mat 
ter  what  the  court  might  decide,  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  had  fixed  the  power  in  the  people  of  the  North  to 
make  every  territory  in  the  Union  free. 

"la  that  contest  the  two  candidates  for  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  went  be 
fore  their  people.  They  agreed  to  discuss  the  issues  ; 
they  put  questions  to  each  other  for  answer  ;  and  I  must 
say  here,  for  I  must  be  just  to  all,  that  I  have  been  sur 
prised  in  the  examination  that  I  made  again  within  the 
last  few  days  of  this  discussion  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
Mr.  Douglas,  to  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  far  more  con 
servative  man,  unless  he  has  since  changed  his  opinions, 
than  I  had  supposed  him  to  be.  There  was  no  dodging 
on  his  part.  Mr.  Douglas  started  with  his  questions. 
Here  they  are,  with  Mr.  Lincoln's  answers  : 

"  Question  1.  '  I  desire  to  know  wrTether  Lincoln  to 
day  stands,  as  he  did  in  1854,  in  favor  of  the  uncondi 
tional  repeal  of  the  fugitive  slave  law  ?' 

"Answer.  'I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  in 
favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  fugitive  slave 
law/ 

"  Question  2.  '  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he 
stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in  1854,  against  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union, 
even  if  the  people  want  them  ?' 

"  Answer.  'I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  pledg 
ed  against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into 
the  Union/ 

"  Question  3.  'I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands 
pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the 
Union  with  such  a  constitution  as  the  people  of  that 
State  may  see  fit  to  make  ?' 

"  Answer.  '  I  do  not  stand  pledged  against  the 
admission  of  a  new  State  into  the  Union  with  such  a 
constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to 
make  ?' 


86  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

• 

"  Question  4.  '  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands 
to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia  ?' 

"Answer.  <I  do  not  stand  to-day  pledged  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia/ 

"  Question  5.  f  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he 
stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  be 
tween  the  different  States  ?' 

"  Answer.  i  I  do  not  stand  pledged  to  the  prohibition 
of  the  slave  trade  between  the  different  States/ 

"  Question  6.  '  I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands 
pledged  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  territories  of  the 
United  States,  north  as  well  as  south  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line  ?' 

"  Answer.  i  I  am  impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  pledged 
to  a  belief  in  the  right  and  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  all  the  United  States  territories/ 

"  Question  7.  '  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is 
opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  new  territory  unless 
slavery  is  first  prohibited  therein  ?' 

"  Answer.  i  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  honest 
acquisition  of  territory  ;  and,  in  any  given  case,  I 
would  or  would  not  oppose  such  acquisition,  accordingly 
as  I  might  think  such  acquisition  wrould  or  would  not 
aggravate  the  slavery  question  among  ourselves/ 

"It  is  impossible,  Mr.  President,  however  we  may 
differ  in  opinion  with  the  man,  not  to  admire  the  per 
fect  candor  and  frankness  with  which  these  answers 
were  given  ;  no  equivocation — no  evasion.  The  Sena 
tor  from  Illinois  had  his  questions  put  to  him  in  his 
turn.  All  I  propose  to  do  now  is  to  read  his  answer  to 
the  second  question  : 

"  f  The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lin 
coln  is,  *  Can  the  people  of  a  territory,  in  any  lawful  way, 
against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation 
of  a  State  constitution  ?'  I  answer  emphatically,  as 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  87 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer  a  hundred  times 
from  every  stump  in  Illinois,  that,  in  my  opinion,  the 
people  of  a  territory  can.,  by  lawful  means,  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a 
State  constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  an 
swered  that  question  over  and  over  again.  He  heard 
me  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on  that  principle  all  over 
the  State  in  1854,  in  1855,  and  in  1856,  and  he  has  no 
excuse  for  pretending  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  my  position 
on  that  question/ 

"  All  that  was  true  ;  but  see  the  art ;  the  decision 
had  not  come  yet ;  now  the  decision  has  come  ;  now 
what  ? 

"  f  It  matters  not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may 
hereafter  decide  as  to  the  abstract  question,  whether 
slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  territory  under  the 
Constitution,  the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to 
introduce  ©r  exclude  it  as  they  please,  for  the  reason 
that  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour  anywhere 
unless  it  is  supported  by  local  police  regulations. 
Those  police  regulations  can  only  be  established  by 
the  local  legislature  ;  and  if  the  people  are  opposed  to 
slavery,  they  will  elect  representatives  to  that  body 
who  will,  by  unfriendly  legislation,  effectually  prevent 
the  introduction  of  it  into  their  midst.  If,  on  the  con 
trary,  they  are  for  it,  their  legislation  will  favor  its 
extension.  Hence,  no  matter  what  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  may  be  on  that  abstract  question,  still 
the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a  slave  territory  or  a 
free  territory  is  perfect  and  complete  under  the  Nebras 
ka  bill.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  my  answer  satis 
factory  on  that  point/ 

"  Well,  sir,  what  occurred  further  in  that  contro 
versy?  His  competitor  was  shocked  at  the  profli 
gacy  of  the  Senator.  His  competitor  said  to  him — 
and  here  is  the  argument — i  Everybody  knows  that  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  has  determined  the  principle  that 
a  citizen  of  the  South  has  a  right  to  go  into  the  terri- 


8  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES     OF 

tory,  and  there,  under  the  Constitution,  his  property 
is  protected,  and  yet  you  are  telling '  the  people  here 
that  their  legislators,  when  they  swear  to  support  the 
Constitution,  can  violate  that  constitutional  provision/ 
Mr.  Lincoln  held  up  his  hands  in  horror  at  the  propo 
sition.  He  was  bold  in  the  assertion  of  his  own  prin 
ciples  ;  but  he  told  the  Senator  from  Illinois  in  that 
discussion,  that  what  he  was  saying  was  a  gross  out 
rage  on  propriety,  and  was  breaking  the  bargain  he 
had  made.  But  again,  sir,  he  to]d  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision,  because,  said  he,  if  the  Dred  Scott  decision  be 
true,  and  slavery  exists  in  the  territories  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  then  it  also  exists 
in  the  States — it  exists  in  Pennsylvania  as  well  as  in 
Kansas. 

"  The  contest  ended.  On  the  popular  vote,  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  was  beaten  ;  but  according  to 
the  division  of  the  representative  and  senatorial  dis 
tricts  of  the  State,  he  was  re-elected.  The  popular 
vote  upon  the  election  of  members  of  the  Senate  and 
Legislature  was  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  thousand 
in  his  favor,  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  in 
favor  of  the  ^Republican  candidate,  and  five  thousand 
votes  in  favor  of  what  he  called  the  Danites.  All  the 
State  [Republican  officers  were  elected  ;  but  there  was 
a  majority  of  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  elected  in  favor 
the  Senator  from  Illinois,  and  he  came  back  here  in 
triumph. 

"Last  spring  I  was  forced  to  leave  my  country  from 
an  attack  of  a  disease  in  the  eyes,  which  required  at 
tention  abroad.  I  went  to  get  the  attention  of  emi 
nent  oculists  abroad.  For  six  or  eight  months  I  was 
debarred  from  reading  or  writing.  I  came  back  just 
before  the  opening  of  this  Congress  ;  and  I  found  that 
during  my  absence  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois 
had  been  engaged  in  a  controversy  in  the  public  jour 
nals  and  magazines  of  the  country  in  relation  to  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  89 

principles  that  governed  the  territories  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  he  had  copied  into  those  articles  the 
very  arguments  that  his  Republican  opponent  in  Illi 
nois  had  used  against  him,  and  was  then  using  against 
the  Democratic  party.  [Laughter.]  I  have  got  them 
here.  First,  that  it  may  not  be  said  that  I  originated 
this  charge,  after  these  magazine  articles  were  printed, 
and  after  the  Senator's  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  had 
taxed  him  with  want  of  good  faith  under  the  Constitu 
tion  for  alleging  the  power  of  the  local  legislature  to 
go  through  with  this  unfriendly  legislation,  in  a  subse 
quent  speech,  delivered  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  in  Septem 
ber,  1859,  Mr.  Lincoln  said  to  the  people  : 

"  Judge  Douglas  says,  if  the  Constitution  carries 
slavery  into  the  territories,  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people  of  the  territories  to  control  it  as  other  property, 
then  it  follows  logically  that  every  one  who  swears  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  must 
give  that  support  to  that  property  which  it  needs.  And 
if  the  Constitution  carries  slavery  into  the  territories, 
beyond  the  power  of  the  people  to  control  it  as  other 
property,  then  it  also  carries  it  into  the  States,  because 
the  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Now, 
gentlemen,  if  it  were  not  for  my  excessive  modesty,  I 
would  say  that  I  told  that  veiy  thing  to  Judge  Doug 
las  quite  a  year  ago.  This  argument  is  here  in  print, 
and  if  it  were  not  for  my  modesty,  as  I  said,  I  might 
call  your  attention  to  it.  If  you  read  it,  you  will  find 
that  I  not  only  made  that  argument,  but  made  it  better 
than  he  has  made  it  since."  (Laughter.) 

The  first  debate  took  place  at  Ottawa,  and  Mr., 
Douglas  made  the  opening  speech,  in  the  course  of 
which  he  made  a  singular  charge  against  Mr.  Lincoln, 
which  was  as  follows  : 

"  In  1854,  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull 
entered  into  an  arrangement,  one  with  the  other,  and 


90  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

each  with  his  respective  friends,  to  dissolve  the  old 
Whig  party  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  dissolve  the  old 
Democratic  party  on  the  other,  and  to  connect  the  mem 
bers  of  both  into  an  Abolition  party,  under  the  name 
and  disguise  of  a  Kepublican  party.  The  terms  of 
that  arrangement  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trum- 
bull  have  been  published  to  the  world  by  Mr.  Lincoln's 
special  friend,  James  H.  Matheny,  Esq.,  and  they 
were,  that  Lincoln  should  have  Shields'  place  in  the  U.  S. 
Senate,  which  was  then  about  to  become  vacant,  and 
that  Trumbull  should  have  my  seat  when  my  term  ex 
pired.  Lincoln  went  to  work  to  abolitionize  the  old 
Whig  party  all  over  the  State,  pretending  that  he  was 
then  as  good  a  Whig  as  ever  ;  and  Trumbull  went  to 
work  in  his  part  of  the  State  preaching  abolitionism 
in  its  milder  and  lighter  form,  and  trying  to  abolition 
ize  the  Democratic  party,  and  bring  old  Democrats, 
handcuffed  and  bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Abolition 
camp.  In  pursuance  of  the  arrangement,  the  parties 
met  in  Springfield  in  October,  1854,  and  proclaimed 
their  new  platform.  Lincoln  was  to  bring  into  the 
Abolition  camp  the  old  line  Whigs,  and  transfer  them 
over  to  Giddings,  Chase,  Fred.  Douglas,  and  Parson 
Lovejoy,  who  were  ready  to  receive  them,  and  christen 
them  in  their  new  faith.  They  laid  down,  on  that  oc 
casion,  a  platform  for  their  new  Kepublican  party, 
which  was  to  be  thus  constructed." 

To  this  chapge,  Mr.  Lincoln  replied  : 

"  When  a  man  hears  himself  somewhat  misrepre 
sented,  it  provokes  him — at  least,  I  find  it  so  with 
myself ;  but  when  misrepresentation  becomes  very  gross 
and  palpable,  it  is  more  apt  to  amuse  him.  The  first 
thing  I  see  fit  to  notice,  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Doug 
las  alleges,  after  running  through  the  history  of  the 
old  Democratic  and  the  old  Whig  parties,  that  Judge 
Trumbull  and  myself  made  an  arrangement  in  1854, 
by  which  I  was  to  have  the  place  of  General  Shields 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  91 

in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  Judge  Trumbull  was 
Jto  have  the  place  of  Judge  Douglas.  Now,  all  I  have 
to  say  upon  that  subject  is,  that  I  think  no  man — not 
even  Judge  Douglas — can  prove  it,  because  it  is  not 
true.  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  c  conscientious '  in  saying 
it.  As  to  those  resolutions  that  he  took  such  a  length 
of  time  to  read,  as  being  the  platform  of  the  Kepubli- 
can  party  in  1854,  I  say  that  I  never  had  anything  to 
do  with  them,  and  I  think  Trumbull  never  had.  Judge 
Douglas  cannot  show  that  either  of  us  ever  did  have 
anything  to  do  with  them.  I  believe  this  is  true  about 
those  resolutions  :  There  was  a  call  for  a  convention 
to  form  a  Kepublican  party  at  Springfield,  and  I  think 
that  my  friend,  Mr.  Lovejoy,  who  is  here  upon  this 
stand,  had  a  hand  in  it.  I  think  this  is  true,  and  I 
think  if  he  will  remember  accurately,  he  will  be  able 
to  recollect  that  he  tried  to  get  me  into  it,  and  I  would 
not  go  in.  I  believe  it  is  also  true  that  I  went  away 
from  Springfield  when  the  convention  was  in  session, 
to  attend  court  in  Tazewell  county.  It  is  true  they 
did  place  my  name,  though  without  authority,  upon 
the  committee,  and  afterward  wrote  me  to  attend  the 
meeting  of  the  committee,  but  I  refused  to  do  so,  and 
I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  that  organization. 
This  is  the  plain  truth  about  all  that  matter  of  the 
resolutions." 

In  the  reply,  Mr.  Lincoln  uttered  the  subjoined 
forcible  and  eloquent  paragraph,  upon  negro  equality  : 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any 
greater  length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all 
I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery 
and  the  black  race.  This  is  the  whole  of  it,  and  any 
thing  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and 
political  equality  with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and 
fantastic  arrangement  of  words,  by  which  a  man  can 
prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut-horse.  I  will 
say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  pur- 


92  LIFE     AND, SPEECHES     OP 

pose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  now  exists.  I  j 
believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no 
inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce 
political  and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  the 
black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between  the 
two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever 
forbid  their  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect 
equality,  and  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that  j 
there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Doug- 1 
las,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having 
the  superior  position.  I  have  never  said  anything  to 
the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not 
entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enumerated  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence — the  right  to  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as 
much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with 
Judge  Douglas  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many  respects — 
certainly  not  ^n  color,  perhaps  not  in  moral  or  intellec 
tual  endowment.  But  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread, 
without  the  leave  of  any  one  else,  which  his  own  hand 
earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Doug 
las,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  man." 

Mr.  Douglas  also  undertook  to  give  a  little  sketch  of 
his  opponent's  personal  history  in  his  speech,  and  after 
the  following  fashion  : 

"  In  the  remarks  I  have  made  on  this  platform,  and 
the  position  of  Mr.  Lincoln  upon  it,  I  mean  nothing 
personally  disrespectful  or  unkind  to  that  gentleman. 
I  have  known  him  for  nearly  twenty-five  years.  There 
were  many  points  of  sympathy  between  us  when  we 
first  got  acquainted.  We  were  both  comparatively 
boys,  and  both  struggling  with  poverty  in  a  strange 
land.  I  was  a  school-teacher  in  the  town  of  Winches 
ter,  and  he  a  flourishing  grocery-keeper  in  the  town  of 
Salem.  He  was  more  successful  in  his  occupation  than 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  93 

I  was  in  mine,  and  hence  more  fortunate  in  this  world's 
goods.  Lincoln  is  one  of  those  peculiar  men  who  per 
form  with  admirable  skill  everything  which  they  under 
take.  I  made  as  good  a  school-teacher  as  I  could,  and 
when  a  cabinet-maker  I  made  a  good  bedstead  and  ta 
bles,  although  my  old  boss  said  I  succeeded  better  with 
bureaus  and  secretaries  than  with  anything  else  ;  but  I 
believe  that  Lincoln  was  always  more  successful  in  bus 
iness  than  I,  for  his  business  enabled  him  to  get  into 
the  Legislature.  I  met  him  there,  however,  and  had  a 
sympathy  with  him,  because  of  the  up-hill  struggle  we 
both  had  in  life.  He  was  then  just  as  good  at  telling 
an  anecdote  as  now.  He  could  beat  any  of  the,  boys 
wrestling,  or  running  a  foot-race,  in  pitching  quoits  or 
tossing  a  copper  ;  could  ruin  more  liquor  than  all  the 
boys  of  the  town  together,  and  the  dignity  and  impar 
tiality  with  which  he  presided  at  a  horse-race  or  fist- 
fight,  excited  the  admiration  and  won  the  praise  of  ev 
erybody  that  was  present  and  participated.  I  sympa 
thized  with  him,  because  he  was  struggling  with  diffi 
culties,  and  so  was  I.  Mr.  Lincoln  served  with  me  in 
the  Legislature  in  1836,  when  we  both  retired,  and  he 
subsided,  or  became  submerged,  and  he  was  lost  sight 
of  as  a  public  man  for  some  years.  In  1846,  when 
Wilmot  introduced  the  celebrated  proviso,  and  the  Ab 
olition  tornado  swept  over  the  country,  Lincoln  again 
turned  up  as  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Sanga- 
mon  district.  I  was  then  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  and  was  glad  to  welcome  my  old  friend  and 
companion.  While  in  Congress,  he  distinguished  him 
self  by  his  opposition  to  the  Mexican  war,  taking  the 
side  of  the  common  enemy  against  his  own  country  ; 
and  when  he  returned  home  he  found  that  the  indigna 
tion  of  the  people  followed  him  everywhere,  and  lie 
was  again  submerged  or  obliged  to  retire  into  private 
life,  forgotten  by  his  former  friends." 

To  which  Mr.  Lincoln  replied : 


94  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

I 
• 

"  The  Judge  is  wofully  at  fault  about  his  early  friend 
Lincoln  being  a  '  grocery-keeper/  I  don't  know  as  it 
would  be  a  great  sin  if  I  had  been  ;  but  he  is  mista 
ken.  Lincoln  never  kept  a  grocery  anywhere  in  the 
world.  It  is  true  that  Lincoln  did  work  the  latter  part 
of  one  winter  in  a  little  still-house  up  at  the  head  of  a 
hollow.  And  so  I  think  my  friend,  the  Judge,  is 
equally  at  fault  when  he  charges  me  at  the  time  when 
I  was  in  Congress  of  having  opposed  our  soldiers  who 
were  fighting*  in  the  Mexican  war.  The  Judge  did  not 
make  his  charge  very  distinctly,  but  I  can  tell  you 
what  he  can  prove  by  referring  to  the  record.  You  re 
member  I  was  an  old  Whig,  and  whenever  the  Demo 
cratic  party  tried  to  get  me  to  vote  that  the  war  had 
been  righteously  begun  by  the  President,  I  would  not 
do  it.  But  whenever  they  asked  for  any  money,  or 
land- warrants,  or  anything  to  pay  the  soldiers  there, 
during  all  that  time,  I  gave  the  same  vote  that  Judge 
Douglas  did.  You  can  think  as  you  please  as  to  whether 
that  was  consistent.  Such  is  the  truth  ;  and  the  Judge 
has  a  right  to  make  all  he  can  out  of  it.  But  when  he, 
by  a  general  charge,  conveys  the  idea  that  I  withheld 
supplies  from  the  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the 
Mexican  war,  or  did  anything  else  to  hinder  the  sol 
diers,  he  is,  to  say  the  least,  grossly  and  altogether  mis 
taken,  as  a  consultation  of  the  records  will  prove  to 
him." 

Mr.  Lincoln,  before  he  was  through,  made  the  follow 
ing  amusing  point  on  Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply  to  his  con 
tinual  talk  about  the  Supreme  Court  and  reverence  for 
its  decisions  : 

"  This  man  sticks  to  a  decision  which  forbids  the  peo 
ple  of  a  territory  from  excluding  slavery,  and  he  does  so 
not  because  he  says  it  is  right  in  itself- — he  does  not  give 
any  opinion  on  that — but  because  it  has  been  decided  by 
the  court,  ancl  being  decided  "by  the  court,  he  is,  and 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  95 

you  are  bound  to  take  it  in  your  political  action  as 
law — not  that  he  judges  at  all  of  its  merits,  but  because 
a  decision  of  the  court  is  to  him  a  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord."  He  places  it  on  that  ground  alone,  and  you 
will  bear  in  mind  that,  thus  committing  himself  unre 
servedly  to  this  decision,  commits  him  to  the  next  one 
just  as  firmly  as  to  this.  He  did  not  commit  himself 
on  account  of  the  merit  or  demerit  of  the  decision,  but 
it  is  a  Thus  saitli  the  Lord.  The  next  decision,  as 
much  as  this,  will  be  a  Thus  saith  the  Lord.  There  is 
nothing  that  can  divert  or  turn  him  away  from  this  de 
cision.  It  is  nothing  that  I  point  out  to  him  that  his 
great  prototype,  Gen.  Jackson,  did  not  believe  in  the 
binding  force  of  decisions.  It  is  nothing  to  him  that 
Jefferson  did  not  so  believe.  I  have  said  that  I  have 
often  heard  him  approve  of  Jackson's  course  in  disre 
garding  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  pronouncing 
a  National  Bank  constitutional.  He  says,  I  did  not 
hear  him  say  so.  He  denies  the  accuracy  of  my  recol 
lection.  I  say  he  ought  to  know  better  than  I,  but  I 
will  make  no  question  about  this  thing,  though  it  still 
seems  to  me  that  I  heard  him  say  it  twenty  times.  I 
will  tell  him  though,  that  he  now  claims  to  stand  on 
the  Cincinnati  platform,  which  affirms  that  Congress 
cannot  charter  a  National  Bank,  in  the  teeth  of  that 
old  standing  decision  that  Congress  can  charter  a  bank. 
And  I  remind  him  of  another  piece  of  history  on  the 
question  of  respect  for  judicial  decisions,  and  it  is  a 
piece  of  Illinois  history,  belonging  to  a  time  when  the 
large  party  to  which  Judge  Douglas  belonged,  were  dis 
pleased  with  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illi 
nois,  because  they  had  decided  that  a  Governor  could 
not  remove  a  Secretary  of  State.  You  will  find  the 
whole  story  in  Ford's  History  of  Illinois,  and  I  know 
that  Judge  Douglas  will  not  deny  that  he  was  then  in 
favor  of  overslaughing  that  decision  by  the  mode  of 
adding  five  new  Judges,  so  as  to  vote  down  the  four  old 
ones.  Not  only  so,  but  it  ended  in  the  Judge's  sitting 


96  LIFE     AND     SPEECHESOF 

down  on  that  very  bench  as  one  of  the  five  new  Judges 
to  break  down  the  four  old  ones.  It  was  in  this  way 
precisely  that  he  got  his  title  of  Judge.  Now,  when 
the  Judge  tells  me  that  men  appointed  conditionally  to 
sit  as  members  of  a  court,  will  have  to  be  catechised 
beforehand  on  some  subject,  I  say,  l  You  know,  Judge  ; 
you  have  tried  it."  When  he  says  a  court  of  this  kind 
will  lose  the  confidence  of  all  men,  will  be  prostituted 
and  disgraced  by  such  a  proceeding,  I  say,  i  You  know 
best,  Judge  ;  you  have  been  through  the  mill/'  But 
I  cannot  shake  Judge  Douglas's  teeth  loose  from  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Like  some  obstinate  animal  (I 
mean  no  disrespect),  that  will  hang  on  when  he  has 
once  got  his  teeth  fixed  ;  you  may  cut  off  a  leg,  or  you 
may  tear  away  an  arm,  still  he  will  not  relax  his  hold. 
And  so  I  may  point  out  to  the  Judge,  and  say  that  he 
is  bespattered  all  over,  from  the  beginning  of  his  polit 
ical  life  to  the  present  time,  with  attacks  upon  judicial 
decisions — I  may  cut  off  limb  after  limb  of  his  public 
record,  and  strive  to  wrench  him  from  a  single  dictum 
of  the  court — yet  I  cannot  divert  him  from  it.  He 
hangs,  to  the  last,  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  These 
things  show  there  is  a  purpose  strong  as  death  and 
eternity  for  which  he  adheres  to  this  decision,  and  for 
which  he  will  adhere  to  all  other  decisions  of  the  same 
court." 

We  may  safely  .challenge  the  annals  of  stump-speak 
ing  in  the  West  or  at  the  South  for  a  more  overwhelm 
ing  rejoinder  than  this. 

In  the  third  debate,  at  Jonesboro,  Mr.  Lincoln  said  : 

"  I  find  a  report  of  a  speech  made  by  Judge  Doug 
las  at  Joliet,  since  we  last  met  at  Freeport — published, 
I  believe,  in  the  Missouri  Republican — on  the  9th  of 
this  month,  in  which  Judge  Douglas  says  : 

"'You  know  at  Ottawa, -I  read  this  platform,  and 
asked  him  if  he  concurred  in  each  and  all  of  the  prin 
ciples  set  forth  in  it.  He  would  not  answer  these  ques- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  97 

tions.  At  last  I  said  frankly,  "  I  wish  you  to  answer 
them,  because  when  I  get  them  up  here  where  the  color 
of  your  principles  are  a  little  darker  than  in  Egypt,  I 
intend  to  trot  you  down  to  Jonesboro."  The  very  no 
tice  that  I  was  going  to  take  him  down  to  .'Egypt  made 
him  tremble  in .  the  knees  so  that  he  had  to  be  carried 
from  the  platform.  He  laid  up  seven  days,  and  in  the 
meantime  held  a  consultation  with  his  political  physi 
cians  ;  they  had  Lovejoy  and  Farns worth  and  all  the 
leaders  of  the  Abolition  party,  they  consulted  it  all 
over,  and  at  last  Lincoln  came  to  the  conclusion  that  he 
would  answer,  so  he  came  up  to  Freeport  last  Friday/ 
"  Now  that  statement  altogether  furnishes  a  subject 
for  philosophical  contemplation.  I  have  been  treating 
it  in  that  way,  and  I  have  really  come  to  the  conclu 
sion  that  I  can  explain  it  in  no  other  way  than  by  be 
lieving  the  Judge  is  crazy.  If  he  was  in  his  right 
mind,  I  cannot  conceive  how  he  would  have  risked  dis 
gusting  the  four  or  five  thousand  of  his  own  friends 
who  stood  there,  and  knew,  as  to  my  having  been 
carried  from  the  platform,  that  there  was  not  a  word  of 
truth  in  it." 

JUDGE  DOUGLAS — "  Didn't  they  carry  you  off  ?" 
MR.  LINCOLN — "  There  ;  that  question  illustrates 
the  character  of  this  man  Douglas,  exactly.  He  smiles 
now  and  says,  i  Didn't  they  carry  you  off  ?'  But  he 
said  then,  '  he  had  to  be  carried  off;'  and  he  said  it  tt> 
convince  the  country  that  he  had  so  completely  broken 
me  down  by  his  speech  that  I  had  to  be  carried  away. 
Now  he  seeks  to  dodge  it,  and  asks,  '  Didn't  they  carry 
you  off  ?'  Yes,  tltey  did.  But,  Judge  Douglas,  why 
didn't  you  tell  the  truth  '/  I  would  like  to  know  why  you 
didn't  tell  the  truth  %about  it.  And  then  again,  6  He 
laid  up  seven  days.'  He  puts  this  in  print  for  the  peo 
ple  of  the  country  to  read  as  a  serious  document.  I 
think  if  he  had  been  in  his  sober  senses  he  would  not 
have  risked  that  barefacedness  in  the  presence  of  thou 
sands  of  his  own  friends,  who  knew  that  I  made 


98  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 


speeches  within  six  of  the  seven  days  at  Henry,  Mar 
shall  county,  Augusta,  Hancock  county,  and  Macomb, 
McDonough  county,  including  all  the  necessary  travel 
to  meet  him  again  at  Freeport  at  the  end  of  the  six 
days.  Now,  I  say,  there  is  no  charitable  way  to  look 
at  that  statement,  except  to  conclude  that  he  is  ac 
tually  crazy.  There  is  another  thing  in  that  state 
ment  that  alarmed  me  very  greatly  as  he  states 
it,  that  he  was  going  to  '  trot  me  down  to  Egypt/ 
Thereby  he  would  have  you  to  infer  that  I  would  not 
come  to  Egypt  unless  he  forced  me — that  I  could  not 
be  got  here,  unless  he,  giantlike,  had  hauled  me  down 
here.  That  statement  he  makes,  too,  in  the  teeth  of 
the  knowledge  that  I*  had  made  the  stipulation  to  come 
down  here,  and  that  he  himself  had  been  very  reluc 
tant  to  enter  into  the  stipulation.  More  than  all  this, 
Judge  Douglas,  when  he  made  that  statement,  must 
have  been  crazy,  and  wholly  out  of  his  sober  senses. 
or  else  he  would  have  known  that  when  he  got  me 
down  here — that  promise — that  windy  promise — of  his 
powers  to  annihilate  me,  wouldn't  amount  to  anything. 
Now,  how  little  do  I  look  like  being  carried  away 
trembling  ?  Let  the  Judge  go  on,  and  after  he  is  done 
with  his  half  hour,  I  want  you  all,  if  I  can't  go  home 
myself,  to  let  me  stay  and  rot  here  ;  and  if  anything 
happens  to  the  Judge,  if  I  cannot  carry  him  to  the 
hotel  and  put  him  to  bed,  let  me  stay  here  and  rot.  I 
say,  then,  there  is  something  extraordinary  in  this 
statement.  I  ask  you  if  you  know  any  other  living 
man  who  would  make  such  a  statement  ?  I  will  ask 
my  friend  Casey,  over  there,  if  he  would  do  such  a 
thing  ?  Would  he  send  that  out  and  have  his  men 
take  it  as  the  truth  ?  Did  the  Judge  talk  of  trotting 
me  down  to  Egypt  to  scare  me  to  death  ?  Why,  I 
know  this  people  better  than  he  does.  I  was  raised 
just  a  little  east  of  here.  I  am  a  part  of  this  people. 
JBtit  the  Judge  was  raised  further  north,  and,  perhaps, 
he  has  some  horrid  idea  of  what  this  people  might  be 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  99 

induced  to  do.  But  really  I  have  talked  about  this 
matter  perhaps  longer  than  I  ought,  for  it  is  no  great 
thing,  and  yet  the  smallest  are  often  the  most  difficult 
things  to  deal  with.  The  Judge  has  set  about  seriously 
trying  to  make  the  impression  that  when  we  meet  at 
different  places  I  am  literally  in  his  clutches — that  I 
am  a  poor,  helpless,  decrepit  mouse,  and  that  I  can  do 
nothing  at  all.  This  is  one  of  the  ways  he  has  taken 
to  create  that  impression.  I  don't  know  any  other  way 
to  meet  it,  except  this.  I  don't  wan't  to  quarrel  with 
him — to  call  him  a  liar — but  when  I  come  square  up 
to  him  I  don't  know  what  else  to  call  him,  if  I  must 
tell  the  truth  out.  I  want  to  be  at  peace,  and  reserve 
all  my  fighting  powers  for  necessary  occasions.  My 
time,  now,  is  very  nearly  out,  and  I  give  up  the  trifle 
that  is  left  to  the  Judge,  to  let  him  set  my  knees  trem 
bling  again,  if  he  can/' 

Mr.  Greeley,  in  the  Tribune,  speaks  of  this  great 
Senatorial  contest,  and  its  result,  as  follows  : 

"  In  1858,  the  [Republican  State  Convention  unani 
mously  designated  him  as  their  representative  man  to 
stump  the  State  against  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  They 
knew  that  the,  struggle  would  be  a  desperate  one — that 
they  must  put  their  very  best  foot  foremost.  If  they 
had  had  a  champion  whom  they  supposed  abler  and 
worthier  than  Mr.  Lincoln,  they  would  have  chosen 
that  champion  for  this  arduous  service.  They  had 
nearly  all  heard  Lincoln  and  their  other  speakers, 
and  ought  to  have  known  by  this  time  who  was  their 
best  man  ;  yet  they  choose  Abraham  Lincoln.  If  they 
don't  know  who  is  their  best  man,  should  not  mission 
aries  be  sent  out  to  teach  them  ? 

"Mr.  Lincoln  went  into  this  canvass  under  most  dis 
couraging  auspices.  Many  leading  Kepublicans  out  of 
the  State  thought  the  opposition  to  Mr.  Douglas  im 
politic  and  mistaken.  We  certainly  thought  so  ;  and, 
though  we  said  little  on  the  point,  our  very  silence  was 


100  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

damaging  in  a  State  where  more  people  read  this  paper 
than  any  other.  It  has  heen  a  hundred  times  asserted 
that' The  Tribune  '  defeated  Lincoln/  But  there  were 
other  outside  influences,  as  adverse  and  at  least  equally 
potent.  In  1856,  the  State  polled  37,444  American  or 
Whig  votes  for  Fillmore.  Many  of  these  were  cast  by 
natives  of  Kentucky  ;  all  by  men  who  love  and  con 
fide  in  John  J.  Crittenden.  In  the  thickest  of  the  fray, 
a  letter  from  Mr.  Crittenden  was  published,  advising 
them  to  favor  Mr.  Douglas's  reelection.  Undoubtedly, 
this  had  an  overruling  influence  with  thousands.  Yet, 
after  Messrs.  Lincoln  and  Douglas  had  thoroughly  can 
vassed  the  State,  the  people  voted  with  the  following 
result : 

FREMONT.  FILLMORE.  BUCHANAN. 
Total  vote  in  1856 96,189  . .  3?  ,444  . .  105,348 

LINCOLN.  LECOMPTON.  DOUGLAS. 
Total  vote  in  1858 125,275  ..  5,071  ..  121,190 

Linco  n's  gain  on  1856 29,086 

Douglas'  "  15,742 

Lincoln's  net  gain 14,345 

Or,  give  Douglas  the  entire  Lecompton  vote  in  addition 
to  his  own,  and  Lincoln  still  gains  on  him  9,273. 

"  Bear  in  mind  that  this  was  a  contest  in  which  the 
sympathies  of  men  indifferent  to  party  were  almost 
wholly  with  Douglas,  wherein  many  Republicans  sup 
ported  him  throughout,  wherein  Crittenden  summoned 
the  Americans  to  his  aid,  and  wherein  he  stood  boldly 
on  the  ground  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  with  the  pres 
tige  of  having  just  before  defeated  the  infamous  Le 
compton  bill.  All  things  considered,  we  recall  nothing 
in  the  history  of  political  campaigning  more  creditable 
to  a  canvasser  than  this  vote  is  to  Lincoln. 

"  We  have  thus  dwelt  throughput  on  facts  of  public 
record  or  of  universal  notoriety.  The  speeches  made 
to  the  same  audiences  in  that  canvass,  by  Messrs.  Lin 
coln  and  Douglas,  were  collected  and  printed  by  the 
Republicans  of  Ohio,  for  cheap  and  general  dissemina- 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  101 

tion,  long  before  they  dreamed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  would 
be  the  Kepublican  candidate  for  President.  We  had 
sold  hundreds  of  them  at  our  counter,  as  we  had  thou 
sands  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  in  this  city,  before  the 
meeting  of  the  Chicago  Convention  ;  we  expect  to  sell 
thousands  of  the  former  and  tens  of  thousands  of  the 
latter  forthwith.  Every  reader  can  herein  see  just  what 
manner  of  man  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  and  how  he  bears  him 
self  when  confronted  with  one  of  the  very  best  and  most 
effective  popular  canvassers  in  the  democratic  ranks. 
If  Mr.  Lincoln  is  weak,  or  ill-informed,  or  anywise  de 
ficient,  this  protracted  discussion  with  Douglas  must 
show  it." 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  shortly  after  the  election  took 
place,  made  the  subjoined  statement  : 

"  The  majorities  for  members  of  Congress  are  as  fol 
lows  : 

First  district,  E.  B.  Washburne,  Hep : 9,414 

Second  district,  J   F.  Farns worth,  Rep 8,639 

Third  district,  Owen  Lovejoy,  Rep 7.443 

Fourth  district,  William  Kellogg,  Rep 2,711 

Fifth  district,  Isaac  N.  Morris,  Dem 1,961 

Sixth  district,  Thomas  L.  Harris,  Dem 4,447 

Seventh  district,  J.  C.  Robinson,  Dem 1,759 

Eighth  district,  Philip  B.  Foulke,  Dem 2,939 

Ninth  district,  John  A.  Logan  Dem 12,847 

"  The  aggregate  votes  on  the  Congressional  tickets 
were  :  Kepublican,  126,084 ;  Douglas  Democratic, 
121,940  ;  Buchanan  Democratic,  5,091. 

"  The  vote  on  State  Treasurer  stands  :  James  Miller, 
Kepublican,  125,828  ;  W.  B.  Fondey,  Douglas  Demo 
crat,  121,803  ;  John  Dougherty,  Buchanan  Democrat, 
5,091. 

"  These  returns  show,  that  taking  the  vote  on  Con 
gressmen  as  the  test,  the  Republican  majority  over  both 
the  Buchanan  and  Douglas  parties  is  97.  The  entire 
Buchanan  vote  is  5,091.  The  Republicans  retained 
every  county  that  went  for  Fremont  or  Bissell  in  1856. 


102  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES     OF 

They  lost  not  one  which  they  carried  at  the  Presiden 
tial  election,  and  they  have  redeemed  from  the  Demo 
crats  seven  counties  which  went  for  Buchanan  two 
years  ago,  viz.  :  De  Witt,  Logan,  Coles,  Edgar,  Platt, 
Edwards,  and  Bond,  all  of  which  went  against  Gover 
nor  Bissell,  except  Edwards.  Peoria  can  almost  be 
added  to  the  column  of  the  redeemed  counties. 

"  Despite  the  unfair  apportionment,  by  which  Mr. 
Douglas  has  secured  both  branches  of  the  Legislature, 
the  Republicans  of  Illinois  have  abundant  reason  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  result  of  the  contest  through  which 
they  have  just  passed.  Taking  Fremont's  vote  as  a 
standard  of  comparison,  they  have  gained  nearly  30,000 
since  1856.  The  entire  vote  of  the  State  is  252,722, 
against  238,981  two  years  ago — a  difference  of  13,741." 

Mr.  Lincoln  and  his.  fellow  Kepublicans  of  Illinois, 
far  from  being,  discouraged  by  the  result  of  the  cam 
paign,  were  greatly  encouraged,  well  knowing  that 
with  such  gains,  such  a  steady  increase,  by  the  Repub 
lican  party  in  Illinois,  its  day  of  complete  triumph 
could  not  be  far  off. 

During  the  past  autumn  and  winter  Mr.  Lincoln 
visited  various  parts  of  the  country,  delivering  lectures 
upon  the  political  condition  of  the  country,  and  creat 
ing  unbounded  enthusiaism  wherever  he  went.  The 
Leavenworth  Register  speaks  as  follows  of  his  visit  to 
Kansas  : 

"  Hon.  Abraham  Lincoln  arrived  this  afternoon, 
about  two  o'clock.  Notwithstanding  the  inclemency  of 
the  weather,  he  was  met  on  Sixth  street  by  a  large  con 
course  of  our  people,  which  augmented  as  it  neared 
Turner's  Hall,  and  when  it  reached  Delaware  street  it 
contained  seven  or  eight  hundred  persons.  The  proces 
sion  moved  down  Delaware  street  and  turned  up  Maine 


ABBAHAM     LINCOLN.  103 

to  .Shawnee,  and  up  Shawnee  to  the  Mansion  House. 
Along  the  sidewalks  a  dense  crowd  moved  with  the 
procession.  All  the  doors,  windows,  balconies,  and 
porticoes,  were  filled  with  men  and  women,  all  anxious 
to  get  a  sight  of  <  Honest  Old  Abe/  On  arriving 
at  the  Mansion  House  the  concourse  halted,  and  three 
long  and  loud  cheers  were  given  for  Lincoln. 

"The  crowd  by  this  time  had  swelled  to  an  immense 
audience,  filled  with  admiration  for  the  man  of  the 
people  and  the  veteran  warrior  of  freedom.  The  mar 
shals  of  the  day,  Capt.  Dickison  and  Capt.  Hays  of  the 
Turner  Association,  assisted  by  Mr.  Ketner  and  others, 
deserve  credit  for  the  manner  in  which  the  reception 
was  conducted. 

"  Never  did  man  receive  such  honors  at  the  hands  of 
our  people,  and  never  did  our  people  pay  honors  to  a 
better  man,  or  one  who  has  been  a  truer  friend  to 
Kansas.  The  name  of  '  Abe  Lincoln'  is  a  household 
word  in  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio.  Let  it  be  so  in 
Kansas,  for  we  owe  much  to  him  for  his  early  efforts  in 
behalf  of  freedom  in  Kansas." 

The  subjoined  paragraph  is  from  his  speech  at  Leay- 
enworth,  and  is  upon  the  subject  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union.  Said  he  : 

"  But  you,  Democrats,  are  for  the  Union  ;  and  you 
greatly  fear  the  success  of  the  [Republicans  would  de 
stroy  the  Union.  Why  ?  Do  the  Kepublicans  declare 
against  the  Union  ?  Nothing  like  it.  Your  own 
statement  of  it  is,  that  if  the  Black  Republicans  elect 
a  President,  you  won't  stand  it !  You  will  break  up 
the  Union.  That  will  be  your  act,  not  ours.  To  jus 
tify  it,  you  must  show  that  our  policy  gives  you  just 
cause  fQr  such  desperate  action.  Can  you  do  that  ? 
When  you  attempt  it,  you  will  find  that  our  policy  is 
exactly  the  policy  of  the  men  who  made  the  Union. 
Nothing  more  and  nothing  less.  Do  you  really  think 


104  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

you  are  justified  to  break  the  government  rather  than 
have  it  administered  as  it  was  by  Washington,  and 
other  great  and  good  men  who  made  it,  and  first 
administered  it  ?  If  you  do,  you  are  very  unreason 
able,  and  more  reasonable  men  cannot  and  will  not 
submit  to  you.  While  you  elect  Presidents  we  submit, 
neither  breaking  nor  attempting  to  break  up  the 
Union.  If  we  shall  constitutionally  elect  a  President, 
it  will  be  our  duty  to  see  that  you  also  submit.  Old 
John  Brown  has  been  executed  for  treason  against  a 
State.  We  cannot  object,  even  though  he  agreed  with 
us  in  thinking  slavery  wrong.  That  cannot  excuse 
violence,  bloodshed,  and  treason.  It  could  avail  him 
nothing  that  he  might  think  himself  right.  So,  if 
constitutionally  we  elect  a  President,  and,  therefore, 
you  undertake  to  destroy  the  Union,  it  will  be  our 
duty  to  deal  with  you  as  old  John  Brown  has  been 
dealt  with.  We  shall  try  to  do  our  duty.  We  hope 
and  believe  that  in  no  section  w^Jl  a  majority  so  act  as 
to  render  such  extreme  measures  necessary/' 

Mr.  Lincoln  is  described  by  one  who  is  familiar  with 
his  appearance  and  manners,  as  follows  : 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  stands  six  feet  and  four  inches  high  in 
his  stockings.  His  frame  is  not  muscular,  but  gaunt 
and  wiry  ;  ids  arms  are  long,  but  not  unreasonably  so 
for  a  person  of  his  height ;  his  lower  limbs  are  not  dis- 
proportioned  to  his  body.  In  walking,  his  gait,  though 
firm,  is  never  brisk.  He  steps  slowly  and  deliberately, 
almost  always  with  his  head  inclined  forward,  and  his 
hands  clasped  behind  his  back.  In  matters  of  dress 
he  is  by  no  means  precise.  Always  clean,  he  is  never 
fashionable  ;  he  is  careless,  but  not  slovenly.  In  man 
ner  he  is  remarkably  cordial,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
simple.  His  politeness  is  always  sincere,  but  never 
elaborate  and  oppressive.  A  warm  shake  of  the  hand, 
and  a  warmer  smile  of  recognition,  are  his  methods  of 
greeting  his  friends.  At  rest,  his  features,  though 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  105 

those  of  a  man  of  mark,  are  not  such  as  belong  to  a 
handsome  man  ;  but  when  his  fine  dark  gray  eyes  are 
lighted  up  by  any  emotion,  and  his  features  begin  their 
play,  he  would  be  chosen  from  among  a  crowd  as  one 
who  had  in  him  not  only  the  kindly  sentiments  which 
women  love,  but  the  heavier  metal  of  which  full-grown 
men  and  Presidents  are  made.  His  hair  is  black,  and 
though  thin  is  wiry.  His  head  sits  well  on  his  shoulders, 
but  beyond  that  it  defies  description.  It  nearer  resem 
bles  that  of  Clay  than  that  of  Webster  ;  but  it  is 
unlike  either.  It  is  very  large,  and,  phrenologically, 
well  proportioned,  betokening  power  in  all  its  develop 
ments.  A  slightly  Komaii  nose,  a  wide-cut  mouth, 
and  a  dark  complexion,  with  the  appearance  of  having 
been  weather-beaten,  complete  the  description.  * 

"In  his  personal  habits,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  as  simple  as 
a  child.  He  loves  a  good  dinner,  and  eats  with  the  ap 
petite  which  goes  Avith  a  great  brtain  ;  but  his  food  is 
plain  and  nutritious.  He  never  drinks  intoxicating 
liquors  of  any  sort,  not  even  a  glass  of  wine.  He  is 
not  addicted  to  tobacco  in  any  of  its  shapes.  He  never 
was  accused  of  a  licentious  act  in  all  his  life.  He 
never  uses  profane  language. 

"A  friend  says  that  once,  when  in  a  towering  rage, 
in  consequence  of  the  efforts  of  certain  parties  to  per 
petrate  a  fraud  on  the  State,  he  was  heard  to  say  : 
1  They  sha'n't  do  it,  d — n  'em  !'  but  beyond  an  expres 
sion  of  that  kind,  his  bitterest  feelings  never  carry  him. 
He  never  gambles  ;  we  doubt  if  he  ever  indulges  in 
any  games  of  chance.  He  is  particularly  cautious 
about  incurring  pecuniary  obligations  for  any  purpose 
whatever,  and  in  debt,  he  is  never  content  until  the 
score  is  discharged.  We  presume  he  owes  no  man  a 
dollar.  He  never  speculates.  The  rage  for  the  sudden 
acquisition  of  wealth  never  took  hold  of  him.  His 
gains  from  his  profession  have  been  moderate,  but  sufrL* 
cient  for  his  purposes.  While  others  have  dreamed  of 
gold,  he  has  been  in  pursuit  of  knowledge.  In  all  his 


106  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

dealings  he  has  the  reputation  of  being  generous  but 
exact,  and,  above  all,  religiously  honest.  He  would  be 
a  bold  man  who  would  say  that  Abraham  Lincoln  ever 
wronged  any  one  out  of  a  cent,  or  ever  spent  a  dollar 
that  he  had  not  honestly  earned.  His  struggles  in  early 
life  have  made  him  careful  of  money  ;  but  his  gener 
osity  with  his  own  is  proverbial.  He  is  a  regular 
attendant  upon  religious  worship,  and  though  not  a 
communicant,  is  a  pew-holder  and  liberal  supporter  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Springfield,  to  which  Mrs. 
Lincoln  belongs.  He  is  a  scrupulous  teller  of  the 
truth — too  exact  in  his  notions  to  suit  the  atmosphere 
of  Washington,  as  it  now  is.  His  enemies  may  say 
that  he  tells  Black  Republican  lies  ;  but  no  man  ever 
charged  that,  in  a  professional  capacity,  or  as  a  citizen 
dealing  with  his  neighbors,  he  would  depart  from  the 
Scriptural  command.  At  home,  he  lives  like  a  gentle 
man  of  modest  means  and  simple  tastes.  A  good-sized 
house  of  wood,  simply  but  tastefully  furnished,  sur 
rounded  by  trees  and  flowers,  is  his  own,  and  there  he 
lives,  at  peace  with  himself,  the  idol  of  his  family,  and 
for  his  honesty,  ability,  and  patriotism,  the  admiration 
of  his  countrymen." 

Another  person  gives  the  subjoined  sketch  of  him  : 

"  In  personal  appearance,  Mr.  Lincoln,  or,  as  he  is 
more  familiarly  termed  among  those  who  know  him 
best,  '  Old  Uncle  Abe/  is  long,  lean,  and  wiry.  In 
motion  he  has  a  great  deal  of  the  elasticity  and  awk 
wardness  which  indicate  the  rough  training  of  his  early 
life,  and  his  conversation  savors  strongly  of  Western 
idioms  and  pronunciation.  His  height  is  six  feet  four 
inches.  His  complexion  is  about  that  of  an  octoroon  ; 
his  face,  without  being  by  any  means  beautiful,  is  ge 
nial  looking,  and  good  humor  seems  to  lurk  in  every 
corner  of  its  innumerable  angles,  He  has  dark  hair 
tinged  with  gray,  a  good  forehead,  small  eyes,  a  long 
penetrating  nose,  with  nostril*  such  as  Napoleon  air- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  107 

ways  liked  to  find  in  his  best  generals,  because  they 
indicated  a  long  head  and  clear  thoughts  ;  and  a 
mouth,  which,  aside  from  being  of  magnificent  propor 
tions,  is  probably  the  most  expressive  feature  of  his 
face. 

i  ''•  As  a  speaker  he  is  ready,  precise,  and  fluent.  His 
manner  before  a  popular  assembly  is  as  he  pleases  to 
make  it,  being  either  superlatively  ludicrous,  or  very 
impressive.  He  employs  but  little  gesticulation,  but 
when  he  desires  to  make  a  point,  produces  a  shrug  of 
his  shoulders,  an  elevation  of  his  eyebrows,  a  depres 
sion  of  his  mouth,  and  a  general  malformation  of  coun 
tenance  so  comically  awkward  that  it  never  fails  to 
1  bring  down  the  house/  His  enunciation  is  slow  and 
emphatic,  and  his  voice,  though  sharp  and  powerful, 
at  times  has  a  frequent  tendency  to  dwindle  into  a 
shrill  and  unpleasant  sound  ;  but  as  before  stated,  the 
peculiar  characteristic  of  his  delivery  is  the  remarkable 
mobility  of  his  features,  the  frequent  contortions  of 
which  excite  a  merriment  his  words  could  not  pro 
duce." 

A  good  story  is  told  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  connection 
with  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair — and  by  the  way  it  is 
but  .one  of  a  thousand  which  might  be  told  of  him,  for 
he  is  a  rare  story-teller — it  is  said  that  when  he  first 
heard  of  the  Harper's  Ferry  invasion,  he  remarked, 
that  it  was  "  a  shocking  and  lamentable  occurrence  j" 
but  foreseeing  the  capital  which  the  democracy  would 
make  out  of  it,  he  added,  "I  do  not  think  the  democ 
racy  can  cross  the  river  of  their  difficulties  at  Harper's 
Ferry." 

We  subjoin  another  amusing  one  from  a  Chicago 
journal  : 

"  A  great  deal  of  fun  was  had  by  the  jokers  in 
Springfieid,  about  an  affair  in  which,  long  time  ago? 


108  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES   OF 

our  good  friend  Lincoln,  the  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency,  was  engaged.  A  young  lady  of  that  city,  now 
the  wife  of  a  distinguished  statesman,  wrote  a  para 
graph  in  a  burlesque  vein,  for  the  Sangamon  Journal, 
in  which  Gen.  Shields  was  good  humoredly  ridiculed 
for  his  connection  with  some  public  measure.  The 
General  was  greatly  incensed,  and  demanded  of  the 
editor  the  name  of  the  offending  party.  *  Old  Sim'  put 
him  off  with  a  request  for  twenty-four  hours  to  con 
sider  the  matter,  and,  shortly  afterward  meeting  Lin 
coln,  told  him  his  perplexity.  *  Tell  him  I  wrote  it/ 
said  Lincoln  ;  and  tell  him  he  did.  After  a  deal  of 
diplomacy  to  get  a  retraction  of  the  offensive  parts  of 
the  paragraph  in  question,  Shields  sent  a  challenge, 
which  Lincoln  accepted,  named  broadswords  as  the 
weapons,  and  an  unfrequented,  well- wooded  island  in 
the  Mississippi,  just  below  Alton,  .as  the  place.  '  Old 
Abe'  was  first  on  the  ground,  and  when  Shields  arrived 
he  found  his  antagonist,  his  sword  in  one  hand  and  a 
hatchet  in  the  other,  with  his  coat  off,  clearing  away 
the  underbrush  !  Before  the  preliminary  arrange 
ments  were  completed,  John  J.  Hardin,  who,  somehow, 
had  got  wind  of  what  was  afloat,  appeared  on  the 
scome,  called  them  both  d — d  fools,  and  by  his  argu 
ments,  addressed  to  their  common  sense,  and  by  his 
ridicule  of  the  figure  that  they,  two  well-grown,  beard 
ed  men,  were  making  there,  each  with  a  frog-sticker  in 
his  hand,  broke  up  the  fight.  We  do  not  know  how 
Gen.  Shields  feels,  but  we  have  heard  of  Lincoln's  say 
ing,  that  the  acceptance  of  the  challenge  was  the  mean 
est  thing  he  ever  did  in  his  life.  Hardin — than  whom 
a  braver  man  never  stood — never  came  out  of  that  ter 
rible  charge  at  Buena  Vista,  to  which  he  led  the  Second 
Kegiment  of  Illinois  Volunteers.  If  the  events  of  his 
life  passed  in  quick  review  before  his  mind,  as  he  lay 
wounded  and  dying  in  that  fatal  ravine,  we  doubt  not 
this  act  of  his,  by  which  he  prevented  two  really  brave 
men  from  engaging  in  fatal  strife,  was  not  the  least  of 
the  consolations  of  that  bitter  hour." 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN. 


109 


"  While  the  late  Illinois  State  Kepublican  Conven 
tion  was  in  session,  the  Hon.  Abraham  Lincoln  stepped 
in  to  witness  the  proceedings.  His  appearance  was 
greeted  with  the  utmost  enthusiasm.  He  had  hardly 
taken  his  seat  when  Mr.  Oglesby  of  Decatur  announced 
to  the  delegates  that  an  old  Democrat  of  Macon  coun 
ty,  who  had  grown  gray  in  the  service  of  that  party 
desired  to  make  a  contribution  to  the  Convention,  and 
the  offer  being  accepted,  forthwith  two  old-time  fence 
rails,  decorated  with  flags  and  streamers,  were  borne 
through  the  crowd  into  the  Convention,  bearing  the  in 
scription  : 


ABKAHAM  LINCOLN, 

•The  Rail  Candidate 
FOR   PRESIDENT   IN   1860. 

Two  rails  from  a  lot  of  3,000  made  in  1830, 
by  Thos.  Hanks  and  Abe  Lincoln  — whose 
father  was  the  first  pioneer  of  Macon  County. 


"  The  effect  was  electrical.  One  spontaneous  burst 
of  applause  went  up  from  all  parts  of  the  '  wigwam/ 
which  grew  more  and  more  deafening  as  it  was  pro 
longed,  and  which  did  not  wholly  subside  for  ten  or  fif 
teen  minutes  after.  The  cheers  upon  cheers  which 
rent  the  air  could  have  been  heard  all  over  the  adjacent 
country.  Of  course  {  Old  Abe'  was  called  out,  and 
made  an  explanation  of  the  matter.  He  stated  that, 
some  thirty  years  ago,  then  just  emigrating  to  the 
State,  he  stopped  with  his  mother's  family,  for  one 
season,  in  what  is  now  Macon  county  ;  that  he  built  a 
cabin,  split  rails,  and  cultivated  a  small  farm  down  on 
the  Sangamon  river,  some  six  or  eight  miles  from 


110  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

Decatur.  These,  he  was  informed,  were  taken  from 
that  fence  ;  but,  whether  they  were  or  not,  he  had 
mauled  many  and  many  better  ones  since  he  had  grown 
to  manhood.  The  cheers  were  renewed  with  the  same 
vigor  when  he  concluded  his  remarks." 

A  Western  Eepublican  relates  the  following  thrilling 
episode  in  the  life  of  Mr.  Lincoln  :  "  Mr.  Lincoln,  or 
i  Old  Abe/  as  his  friends  familiarly  call  him,  is  a  self- 
made  man.  A  Kentuckian  by  birth,  he  emigrated  to 
Illinois  in  his  boyhood,  where  he  earned  his  living  at 
the  anvil,  devoting  his  leisure  hours  to  study.  Having 
chosen  the  law  as  his  future  calling,  he  devoted  himself 
assiduously  to  its  mastery,  contending  at  every  step 
with  adverse  fortune.  During  this  period  of  study,  he 
for  some  time  found  a  home  under  the  hospitable  roof 
of  one  Armstrong,  a  farmer,  who  lived  in  a  log-house 
some  eight  miles  from  the  village  of  Petersburg,  Me- 
nard  county.  Here,  clad  in  homespun,  with  elbows 
out,  and  knees  covered  with  patches,  young  Lincoln 
would  master  his  lessons  by  the  firelight  of  the  cabin, 
and  then  walk  to  town  for  the  purpose  of  recitation. 
This  man  Armstrong  was  himself  poor,' but  he  saw  the 
genius  struggling  in  the  young  student,  and  opened  to 
him  his  rude  home,  and  bid  him  welcome  to  his  coarse 
fare.  How  Lincoln  graduated  with  promise,  how  he 
has  more  than  fulfilled  that  promise,  how  honorably  he 
acquitted  himself  alike  on  the  battle-field,  in  defending 
our  border  settlements  against  the  ravages  of  the  savage 
foes,  and  in  the  halls  of  our  national  legislature,  are 
matters  of  history,  and  need  no  repetition  here.  But 
one  little  incident  of  a  more  private  nature,  standing 
as  it  does  as  a  sort  of  sequel  to  some  things  already 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  Ill 

alluded  to,  I  deem  worthy  of  record.     Some  few  years 
since  the  oldest  son  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  old  friend  Arm 
strong,  the  chief  support  of  his  widowed  mother — the 
good  old  man  having  some  time  previously  passed  from 
earth — was  arrested  on  the  charge  of  murder.    A  young 
man  had  been  killed  during  a*  riotous  melee,  in  the 
night-time,  at  a  camp-meeting,  and  one    of  his  asso 
ciates  stated  that  the  death-wound  was   inflicted  by 
young  Armstrong.     A   preliminary   examination   was 
gone  into,  at  which  the  accuser  testified  so  positively 
that  there  seemed  no  doubt  of  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner, 
and,  therefore,  he  was  held  for  trial.     As  is  too  often 
the  case,  the  bloody  act  caused  an  undue  degree  of  ex 
citement  in  the  public  mind.     Every  improper  incident 
in  the  life  of  the  prisoner — each  act  which  bore  the 
least  semblance  to  rowdyism — each  school-boy  quarrel 
— was  suddenly  remembered  and  magnified,  until  they 
pictured  him  as  a  fiend  of  the  most  horrid  hue.     As 
these  rumors   spread   abroad,   they   were  received  as 
gospel  truth,  and  a  feverish  desire  for  vengeance  seized 
upon  the  infatuated  populace,  while  only  prison-bars 
prevented  a  horrible  death  at  the  hands  of  a  mob. 
The  events  were  heralded  in  the  county  papers,  painted 
in  the  highest  colors,  accompanied  by  rejoicings  over 
the  certainty  of  punishment  being  meted  out  to  the 
guilty  party.      The    prisoner,    overwhelmed    by   the 
circumstances  under  which  he  found  himself  placed, 
fell  into  a  melancholy  condition,  bordering  upon  de 
spair  ;  and  the  widowed  mother,  looking  through  her 
tears,  saw  no  cause  for  hope  from  earthly  aid. 

"  At  this  juncture,  the  widow  received  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Lincoln,  volunteering  his  services  in  an  effort  to 


112          '        LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

save  the  youth  from  the  impending  stroke.  Gladly  was 
his  aid  accepted,  although  it  seemed  impossible  for 
even  his  sagacity  to  prevail  in  such  a  desperate  case  ; 
but  the  heart  of  the  attorney  was  in  his  work,  and  he 
set  about  it  with  a  will  that  knew;no  such  word  as  fail. 
Feeling  that  the  poisoned  condition  of  the  public  mind 
was  such  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  impanelling 
an  impartial  jury  in  the  court  having  jurisdiction,  he 
procured  a  change  of  venue,  and  a  postponement  of  the 
trial.  He  then  went  studiously  to  work  unravelling  the 
history  of  the  case,  and  satisfied  himself  that  his  client 
was  the  victim  of  malice,  and  that  the  statement  of 
the  accuser  was  a  tissue  of  falsehoods. 

"  When  the  trial  was  called  on,  the  prisoner,  pale  and 
emaciated,  with  hopelessness  written  on  every  feature, 
and  accompanied  by  his  half-hoping,  half-despairing 
mother — whose  only  hope  was  a  mother's  belief  of  her 
son's  innocence,  in  the  justice  of  the  God  she  worship 
ped,  and  in  the  noble  counsel,  who,  without  hope  of  fee 
or  reward  upon  earth,  had  undertaken  the  cause — took 
his  seat  in  the  prisoner's  box,  and  with  a  f  stony  firm 
ness'  listened  to  the  reading  of  the  indictment.  Lin 
coln  sat  quietly  by,  while  the  large  auditory  looked  on 
him  as  though  wondering  what  he  eould  say  in  defence 
of  one  whose  guilt  they  regarded  as  certain.  The  ex 
amination  of  witnesses  for  the  State  was  begun,  and  a 
well-arranged  mass  of  evidence,  circumstantial  and  pos 
itive,  was  introduced,  which  seemed  to  impale  the  pris 
oner  beyond  the  possibility  of  extrication.  The  coun 
sel  for  the  defence  propounded  but  few  questions,  and 
those  of  a  character  which  excited  no  uneasiness  on  the 
part  of  the  prosecutor — merely,  in  most  cases,  requir- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  113 

ing  the  main  witness  to  be  definite  as  to  time  and  place. 
When  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution  was  ended,  Lin 
coln  introduced  a  few  witnesses  to  remove  some  errone 
ous  impressions  in  regard  to  the  previous  character  of 
his  client,  who,  though  somewhat  rowdyish,  had  never 
been  known  to  commit  a  vicious  act ;  and  to  show  that 
a  greater  degree  of  ill-feeling  existed  between  the  accu 
ser  and  accused  than  the  accused  and  the  deceased. 
The  prosecutor  felt  that  the  case  was  a  clear  one,  and  - 
his  opening  speech  was  brief  and  formal.  Lincoln 
arose,  while  a  deathly  silence  pervaded  the  vast  audi 
ence,  and  in  a  clear  but  moderate  tone  began  his  argu 
ment.  Slowly  and  carefully  he  reviewed  the  testimony, 
pointing  out  the  hitherto  unobserved  decrepanpies  in 
the  statements  of  the  principal  witness.  That  which 
had  seemed  plain  and  plausible,  he  made  to  appear 
crooked  as  a  serpent's  path.  The  witness  had  stated 
that  the  affair  took  place  at  a  certain  hour  in  the  even 
ing,  and  that,  by  the  aid  of  the  brightly  shining  moon, 
he  saw  the  prisoner  inflict  the  death  blow  with  a  slung- 
shot.  Mr.  Lincoln  showed  that  at  the  hour  referred  to, 
the  moon  had  not  yet  appeared  above  the  horizon,  and 
consequently  the  whole  tale  was  a  fabrication.  An  al 
most  instantaneous  change  seemed  to  have  been  wrought 
in  the  minds  of  his  auditors,  and  the  verdict  of  i  not 
guilty'  was  at  the  end  of  every  tongue.  But  the  advo 
cate  was  not  content  with  this  intellectual  achievement. 
His  whole  being  had  for  months  been  bound  up  in  this 
work  of  gratitude  and  mercy,  and,  as  the  lava  of  the 
overcharged  crater  bursts  from  its  imprisonment,  so 
great  thoughts  and  burning  words  leaped  forth  from 
the  soul  of  the  eloquent  Lincoln.  He  drew  a  picture 


114  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

,of  the  perjurer  so  horrid  and  ghastly  that  the  accuser 
could  sit  under  it  no  longer,  but  reeled  and  staggered 
from  the  court-room,  while  the  audience  fancied  they 
could  see  the  brand  upon  his  brow.  Then  in  words  of 
thrilling  pathos,  Lincoln  appealed  to  the  jurors  as  fa 
thers  of  sons  who  might  become  fatherless,  and  as  hus 
bands  of  wives  who  might  be  widowed,  to  yield  to  no 
previous  impressions,  no  ill-founded  prejudice,  but  to 
do  his  client  justice  ;  and  as  he  alluded  to  the  debt  of 
gratitude  which  he  owed  to  the  boy's  sire,  tears  were 
seen  to  fall  from  many  eyes  unused  to  weep.  It  was 
near  night  when  he  concluded  by  saying  that,  if  justice 
were  done — as  he  believed  it  would  be — before  the  sun 
should  set,  it  would  shine  upon  his  client  a  free  man. 
The  jury  retired,  and  the  court  adjourned  for  the  day. 
Half  an  hour  had  not  elapsed,  when,  as  the  officers  of 
the  court  and  the  volunteer  attorney  sat  at  the  tea-ta 
ble  of  their  hotel,  a  messenger  announced  that  the  jury 
had  returned  to  their  seats.  All  repaired  immediately 
to  the  court-house,  and  while  the  prisoner  was  being 
brought  from  the  jail,  the  court-room  was  filled  to 
overflowing  with  citizens  of  the  town.  When  the  pris 
oner  and  his  mother  entered,  silence  reigned  as  com 
pletely  as  though  the  house  was  empty.  The  foreman 
of  the  jury,  in  answer  to  the  usual  inquiry  of  the 
court,  delivered  the  verdict  of  i  Not  Guilty  !'  The 
widow  dropped  into  the  arms  of  her  son,  who  lifted  her 
up,  and  told  her  to  look  upon  him  as  before — free  and 
innocent.  Then,  with  the  words,  i  Where  is  Mr.  Lin 
coln  ?'  he  rushed  across  the  room  and  grasped  the  hand 
of  his  deliverer,  while  his  heart  was  too  full  for  utter 
ance.  Lincoln  turne'd  his  eyes  toward  the  West,  where 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  115 

the  sun  still  lingered  in  view,  and  then,  turning  to  the 
youth,  said,  '  It  is  not  yet  sundown,  and  you  are  free/ 
I  confess  that  my  cheeks  were  not  wholly  unwet  hy 
tears,  and  I  turned  from,  the  affecting  scene.  As  I  cast 
a  glance  behind,  I  saw  Abraham  Lincoln  obeying  the 
divine  injunction  by  comforting  the  widowed  and  the 
fatherless." 

In  May,  1859,  Mr.  Lincoln  wrote  the  subjoined  let- 
.ter  to  a  German  citizen  of  Illinois.  The  letter  speaks 
for  itself,  and  needs  no  comment  : 

"  SPRINGFIELD,  May  17,  1859. 

"  Dear  Sir — Your  letter,  in  which  you  inquire,  on 
your  own  account  and  in  behalf  of  certain  other  Ger 
man  citizens,  whether  I  approve  or  oppose  the  consti 
tutional  provision  in  relation  to  naturalized  citizens 
which  was  lately  enacted  in  Massachusetts,  and  whether 
I  favor  or  oppose  a  fusion  of  the  Kepublicans  with  the 
other  Opposition  elements  in  the  campaign  of  1860, 
has  been  received. 

"  Massachusetts  is  a  sovereign  and  independent  State, 
and  I  have  no  right  to  advise  her  in  her  policy.  Yet, 
if  any  one  is  desirous  to  draw  a  conclusion  as  to  what 
I  would  do  from  what  she  has  done,  I  may  speak  with 
out  impropriety.  I  say,  then,  that  so  far  as  I  understand 
the  Massachusetts  provision,  I  am  against  its  adoption, 
not  only  in  Illinois,  but  in  every  other  place  in  which 
I  have  the  right  to  oppose  it.  As  I  understand  the 
spirit  of  our  institutions,  it  is  designed  to  promote  the 
elevation  of  men.  I  am,  therefore,  hostile  to  anything 
that  tends  to  their  debasement.  It  is  well  known  that 
I  deplore  the  oppressed  condition  of  the  blacks,  and  it 
would,  therefore,  be  very  inconsistent  for  me  to  look 
with  approval  upon  any  measure  that  infringes  upon 
the  inalienable  rights  of  white  men,  whether  or  not  they 
are  born  in  another  land  or  speak  a  different  language 
from  our  own. 


116  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

"  In  respect  to  a  fusion,  I  am  in  favor  of  it  whenevei 
it  can  be  effected  on  Republican  principles,  but  upon 
no  other  condition.  A  fusion  upon  any  other  platform 
would  be  as  insane  as  unprincipled.  It  would  thereby 
lose  the  whole  North,  while  the  common  enemy  would 
still  have  the  support  of  the  entire  South.  The  ques 
tion  in  relation  to  men  is  different.  There  are  good 
and  patriotic  men  and  able  statesmen  in  the  South 
whom  I  would  willingly  support  if  they  would  place 
themselves  on  Eepublican  ground  ;  but  I  shall  oppose 
the  lowering  of  the  Republican  standard  even  by  a 
hair' s-breadth. 

"  I  have  written  in  haste,  but  I  believe  I  have  an 
swered  your  questions  substantially. 

"  Respectfully,  yours, 

"  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

"DR.  THEODOR  CANISIUS." 

"  We  have  heard,"  says  the  The  Evansville  (Ind.) 
Journal,  "  the  following  anecdote  related  of  the  people's 
candidate  for  the  Presidency,  which  shows  the  love  of 
knowledge,  the  industry,  the  conscientiousness,  and  the 
integrity  of  the  subject  of  this  sketch  : 

"  It  is  well  known  that  he  lived  in  Spencer  county, 
above  here  in  Indiana,  in  his  young  days.  He  was  a 
hard-working  lad,  and  very  eager  in  his  thirst  for 
knowledge.  A  man,  named  Crawford,  owned  a  copy 
of  Weems's  Life  of  Washington — the  only  one  in  the 
whole  neighborhood.  Young  Lincoln  borrowed  that 
interesting  book  (not  having  money  to  spare  to  buy 
one),  and  while  reading  it,  by  a  slight  negligence,  left 
it  in  a  window,  when  a  rain-storm  came  up  and  wet  the 
book  so  as  to  ruin  it.  Young  Lincoln  felt  badly,  but, 
like  an  honest  boy,  he  went  to  Mr.  Crawford  with  the 
ruined  book,  acknowledged  his  accountability  for  its 
destruction,  and  his  willingness  to  make  due  compensa 
tion.  He  said  he  had  no  money,  but  would  work  out 
the  value  of  the  book. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  117 

"  The  owner  of  the  book  said  to  him,  'Well,  Abe, 
being  as  it's  you,  I  won't  be  hard  on  you.  If  you  will 
come  over  and  pull  fodder  for  two  days,  I'll  let  you 
off.' 

"  Abe  went  over  accordingly,  and  pulled  fodder  the 
requisite  time  ;  and  so  tall  and  handy  a  lad  was  he, 
that  Crawford  required  him  to  pull  the  fodder  off  of 
the  tallest  stalks,  while  he  took  the  shortest  ones  him 
self/' 


118  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 


PART    FOURTH. 

THE    CONVENTION    AND    ITS    NOMINATIONS. 

ON  the  sixteenth  day  of  May  the  Republican  Na 
tional  Convention  met  at  Chicago  in  a  large  building 
put  up  for  the  purpose  arid  called  the  "  Wigwam." 

The  doors  were  opened  at  11  o'clock. 

Long  before  that  hour  the  concourse  of  people  as 
sembled  around  the  doors  numbered  many  thousands 
more  than  could  gain  admittance  to  the  building.  As 
soon  as  the  doors  were  opened  the  entire  body  of  the 
Wigwam  was  solidly  packed  with  men.  The  seats  in 
the  galleries  were  equally  closely  packed  with  ladies. 
The  interior  of  the  hall  was  handsomely  decorated  with 
evergreen,  statuary,  and  flowers,  and  presented  a  strik 
ing  appearance.  There  were  not  less  than  ten  thousand 
persons  in  the  building,  while  the  open  doors  displayed 
to  view  crowds  in  the  streets  unable  to  obtain  more 
than  a  glimpse  inside  of  the  hall. 

At  12  o'clock  the  Convention  was  called  to  order  by 
Gov.  Morgan  of  New- York,  Chairman  of  the  National 
Committee,  who  named  the  honorable  DAVID  WILMOT 
of  Pennsylvania  for  temporary  President. 

The  Chair  named  Judge  Marshall  of  Md.,  and  Gov. 
Cleveland  of  Conn.,  to  conduct  Mr.  Wilmofc  to  his  seat. 
Judge  Marshall  introduced  Mr.  Wilniot  as  the  man 
who  dared  to  do  right  regardless  of  consequences. 
With  such  a  man,  he  said,  there  is  no  such  word  as  fail. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  119 

Mr.  WILMOT  addressed  the  Convention  briefly,  re 
turning  thanks  for  the  high  and  undeserved  honor. 
He  would  carry  the  remembrance  of  it  with  him  to  the 
day  of  his  death.  It  was  unnecessary  for  him  to  re 
mind  the  Convention  of  the  high  duty  devolved  upon 
them.  A  great  sectional  interest  had  for  years  domi 
nated  with  a  high  hand  over  the  affairs  of  the  country. 
It  bad  bent  all  its  energy  to  the  extension  and  natural 
ization  of  slavery.  It  is  the  mission  of  the  [Republican 
party  to  oppose  this  policy,  and  restore  to  the  govern 
ment  the  policy  of  the  Revolutionary  fathers  ;  to  resist 
the  dogma  that  slavery  exists  wherever  the  Constitu 
tion  extends  ;  to  read  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers 
read  it.  That  Constitution  was  not  ordained  to  em 
brace  slavery  within  all  the  limits  of  the  country. 
They  lived  and  died  in  the  faith  that  slavery  was  a  blot, 
and  would  soon  be  washed  out.  Had  they  deemed  that 
the  Revolution  was  to  establish  a  great  slave  empire, 
not  one  would  have  drawn  the  sword  in  such  a  cause. 
The  battle  was  fought  to  establish  freedom.  Slavery 
is  sectional — freedom  is  national.  [Applause.]  He 
deemed  it  unnecessary  to  remind  the  delegates  of  the 
outrages  and  usurpations  of  the  Democratic  party. 

Those  outrages  will  not  be  confined  to  the  limits  of 
the  slave  States  if  the  South  have  the  power,  and  the 
safety  of  the  free  States  requires  the  Republicans 
should  take  the  government,  and  administer  it  as  it 
has  been  administered  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  and 
Jackson — even  down  to  Van  Buren  and  Polk — before 
these  new  dogmas  were  engrafted  in  the  Democratic 
policy.  He  assumed  his  duties,  exhorting  a  spirit  of 
harmony  to  control  the  action  of  the  delegates. 


120 


LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 


Committees  on  business  and  credentials  were  ap 
pointed.  In  the  afternoon  session,  the  Committee  on 
Organization  reported  the  name  of  George  Aslimuri, 
of  Massachusetts,  for  President,  and  Vice-Presidents 
and  Secretaries  from  every  State  represented  in  the 
Convention.  The  subjoined  Committee  on  Resolutions 
was  appointed  : 


Maine George  Talbot. 

New-Hampshire. . .  .Amos  Tuck. 

Vermont E.  M.  Briggs. 

Massachusetts..^.  S.  Boutwell. 

Rhode  Island B.  T.  Earner. 

Connecticut S.  W.  Kellogg. 

New-York Henry  K.  Selden. 

New-Jersey .  .Thomas  S.  Dudley. 
Pennsylvania. . .  .William  Jessup. 

Ohio J.  H.Barrett. 

Indiana William  T.   Otto. 

Illinois Gustavus   Koeler. 

Wisconsin Carl  Schurz. 


Iowa -John  A.  Kasson. 

Minnesota Stephen  Miller. 

Delaware N.  D.  Smithers. 

Maryland F.  P.  Blair. 

Virginia Alfred   Caldwell. 

Kentucky George  T.  Blakely. 

Michigan Austin  Blair. 

Missouri Charles  M.  Bernais. 

California F.  P.  Tracy. 

Texas J.  Strauss. 

District  of  Columbia .  .G.  A.  Hall. 

Nebraska A.  S.  Bradlock. 

Kansas J .  F .   Hatterscheidt 


On  Thursday  morning  the  Convention  met  at  ten 
o'clock.  The  greatest  enthusiasm  was  manifested,  both 
inside  and  outside  of  the  "  Wigwam/'  The  entire  day 
was  consumed  in  the  consideration  of  the  proper  rules 
to  be  adopted  for  the  government  of  the  Convention, 
and  in  discussing  the  resolutions  reported  from  the 
Committee.  It  was  agreed  that  a  majority  should  nom 
inate  the  candidates.  The  following  resolutions  were 
adopted  by  the  Convention  as 


THE  PLATFORM  OF  THE   REPUBLICAN  PARTY. 

"  Resolved,  That  we,  the  delegated  representatives 
of  the  Republican  electors  of  the  United  States,  in 
Convention  assembled,  in  the  discharge  of  the  duty  we 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  121 

owe  to  our  constituents  and  our  country,  unite  in  the 
following  declarations  : 

"First :  That  the  history  of  the  nation  during  the 
last  four  years  has  fully  established  the  propriety  and 
necessity  of  the  organization  and  perpetuation  of  the 
Repablican  party,  and  that  the  causes  which  called  it 
into  existence  are  permanent  in  their  nature,  and  now, 
more  than  ever  before,  demand  its  peaceful  and  consti 
tutional  triumph. 

"Second:  That  the  maintenance  of  the  principles 
promulgated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
embodied  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  is  essential  to 
the  preservation  of  our  republican  institutions  ;  that 
the  Federal  Constitution,  the  rights  of  the  States,  and 
the  Union  of  the  States,  must  and  shall  be  preserved  ; 
and  that  we  reassert  ( these  truths  to  be  self-evident, 
that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed 
by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights  ;  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi 
ness.  That  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are 
instituted  among  men,  deriving  their  j  ust  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed/ 

"Third:  That  to  the  Union  of  the  States  this 
nation  owes  its  unprecedented  increase  in  population  ; 
its  surprising  development  of  material  resources  ;  its 
rapid  augmentation  of  wealth  ;  its  happiness  at  home, 
and  its  honor  abroad  ;  and  we  hold  in  abhorrence  all 
schemes  for  disunion,  come  from  whatever  source  they 
may  ;  and  we  congratulate  the  country  that  no  Repub 
lican  member  of  Congress  has  uttered  or  countenanced 
a  threat  of  disunion,  so  often  made  by  Democratic 
members  of  Congress  without  rebuke,  and  with  ap 
plause  from -their  political  associates  ;  and  we  denounce 
those  threats  of  disunion,  in  case  of  a  popular  over 
throw  of  their  ascendency,  as  denying  the  vital  princi 
ples  of  a  free  government,  and  as  an  avowal  of  con 
templated  treason,  which  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  an 
indignant  people  strongly  to  rebuke  and  forever  silence. 

6 


122  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Fourth :  That  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the 
rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  the  right  of  each 
State  to  order  and  control  its  own  domestic  institu 
tions,  according  to  its  own  judgment  exclusively,  is 
essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which  the  perfec 
tion  and  endurance  of  our  political  faith  depends,  and 
we  denounce  the  lawless  invasion  by  armed  force  of  any 
State  or  Territory,  no  matter  under  what  pretext,  as 
among  the  gravest  of  crimes. 

"Fifth:  That  the  present  Democratic  administra 
tion  has  far  exceeded  our  worst  apprehensions  in  its 
measureless  subserviency  to  the  exactions  of  a  sectional 
interest,  as  is  especially  evident  in  its  desperate  exer 
tions  to  force  the  infamous  Lecompton  Constitution 
upon  the  protesting  people  of  Kansas — in  construing 
the  perspnal  relation  between  master  and  servant  to 
involve  an  unqualified  property  in  persons — in  its  at 
tempted  enforcement  everywhere,  on  land  and  sea, 
through  the  intervention  of  Congress  and  the  Federal 
Courts,  of  the  extreme  pretensions  of  a  purely  local 
interest,  and  in  its  general  and  unvarying  abuse  of  the 
power  intrusted  to  it  by  a  confiding  people. 

"Sixth  :  That  the  people  justly  view  with  alarm  the 
reckless  extravagance  which  pervades  every  department 
of  the  federal  government ;  that  a  return  to  rigid 
economy  and  accountability  is  indispensable  to  arrest 
the  system  of  plunder  of  the  public  treasury  by  favored 
partisans  ;  while  the  recent  startling  developments  of 
fraud  and  corruption  at  the  federal  metropolis,  show 
that  an  entire  change  of  administration  is  imperatively 
demanded. 

"  Seventh:  That  the  new  dogma  that  the  Constitu 
tion,  of  its  own  force,  carries  slavery  into  any  or  all  the 
territories  of  the  United  States,  is  a  dangerous  political 
heresy,  at  variance  with  the  explicit  provisions  of  that 
instrument  itself,  with  cotemporaneous  expositions,  and 
with  legislative  and  judicial  precedent,  is  revolutionary 
in  its  tendency,  and  subversive  of  the  peace  and  har 
mony  of  the  country. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  123 

"Eighth  :  That  the  normal  condition  of  all  the  terri 
tory  of  the  United  States  is  that  of  freedom  ;  that  as 
our  republican  fathers,  when  they  had  abolished  slavery 
in  all  our  national  territory,  ordained  that  no  person 
should  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without 
the  process  of  law,  it  becomes  our  duty,  by  legislation, 
whenever  such  legislation  is  necessary,  to  maintain  this 
provision  of  the  Constitution  against  all  attempts  to 
violate  it ;  and  we  deny  the  authority  of  Congress,  of  a 
territorial  legislature,  or  of  any  individuals,  to  give 
legal  existence  to  slavery  in  any  territory  of  the  United 
States. 

"Ninth :  That  we  brand  the  recent  re-opening  of  the 
African  slave-trade,  under  the  cover  of  our  national 
flag,  aided  by  perversions  of  judicial  power,  as  a  crime 
against  humanity,  a  burning  shame  to  our  country  and 
age  ;  and  we  call  upon  Congress  to  take  prompt  and 
efficient  measures  for  the  total  and  final  suppression  of 
that  execrable  traffic. 

"  Tenth  :  That  in  the  recent  vetoes  by  their  federal 
governors,  of  the  acts  of  the  legislatures  of  Kansas  and 
Nebraska,  prohibiting  slavery  in  those  territories,  we 
find  a  practical  illustration  of  the  boasted  democratic 
principle  of  non-intervention  and  Popular  Sovereignty, 
embodied  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  and  a  de 
nunciation  of  tKe  deception  and  fraud  involved  therein. 

"  Eleventh :  That  Kansas  should  of  right  be  immedi 
ately  admitted  as  a  State,  under  the  constitution  re 
cently  formed  and  adopted  by  her  people,  and  accepted 
by  the  House  of  Representatives. 

"  Twelfth :  That  while  providing  revenue  for  the  sup 
port  of  the  general  government  by  duties  upon  imposts, 
sound  policy  requires  such  an  adjustment  of  these  im 
posts  as  to  encourage  the  development  of  the  industrial 
interest  of  the  whole  country,  and  we  commend  that 
policy  of  national  exchanges  which  secures  to  the  work 
ing  man  liberal  wages,  to  agriculture  remunerating 
prices,  to  mechanics  and  manufacturers  an  adequate 


124  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

. 

reward  for  their  skill,  labor,  and  enterprise,  and  to  the 
nation  commercial  prosperity  and  independence. 

"Thirteenth:  That  we  protest  against  any  sale  or 
alienation  to  others  of  the  public  lands  held  by  actual 
settlers,  and  against  any  view  of  the  free  homestead 
policy  which  regards  the  settlers  as  paupers  or  suppli 
cants  for  public  bounty  ;  and  we  demand  the  passage 
by  Congress  of  the  complete  and  satisfactory  homestead 
measure  which  has  already  passed  the  House. 

"Fourteenth  :  That  the  Eepublican  party  is  opposed 
to  any  change  in  our  naturalization  laws,  or  any  State 
legislation  by  which  the  rights  of  citizenship  hitherto 
accorded  to  immigrants  from  foreign  lands  shall  be 
abridged  or  impaired  ;  and  in  favor  of  giving  a  full  and 
efficient  protection  to  the  rights  of  all  classes  of  citizens, 
whether  native  or  naturalized,  both  at  home  and  abroad. 

"Fifteenth  :  That  appropriations  by  Congress  for 
river  and  harbor  improvements,  of  a  national  character, 
required  for  the  accommodation  and  security  of  an  ex 
isting  commerce,  are  authorized  by  the  Constitution 
and  justified  by  an  obligation  of  the  government  to  pro 
tect  the  lives  and  property  of  its  citizens. 

"  Sixteenth  :  That  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  is 
imperatively  demanded  by  the  interests  of  the  whole 
country  ;  that  the  federal  government  ought  to  render 
immediate  and  efficient  aid  in  its  construction,  and 
that,  as  preliminary  thereto,  a  daily  overland  mail 
should  be  promptly  established. 

"  Seventeenth  :  Finally,  having  thus  set  forth  our 
distinctive  principles  and  views,  we  invite  the  co-oper 
ation  of  all  citizens,  however  differing  on  other  ques 
tions,  who  substantially  agree  with  us  in  their  affirm 
ance  and  support." 

A  scene  of  the  wildest  excitement  followed  the  adop 
tion  of  the  platform,  the  immense  multitude  rising 
and  giving  round  after  round  of  applause  ;  ten  thou 
sand  voices  swelled  into  a  roar  so  deafening  that,  for 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  125 

several  minutes;  every  attempt  to  restore  order  was 
hopelessly  vain.  The  multitude  outside  took  up  and 
re-echoed  the  cheers,  making  the  scene  of  enthusiasm 
and  excitement  unparalleled  in  any  similar  gathering. 

On  Friday  morning  the  wigwam  was  closely  packed 
for  a  full  hour  before  thev  Convention  assembled.  The 
interest  in  the  proceedings  appeared  on  the  increase  as 
the  time  for  balloting  approached.  A  crowd,  "numbered 
by  thousands,  had  been  outside  the  building  since  nine 
o'clock,  anxiously  awaiting  intelligence  from  the  inside. 
Arrangements  had  been  made  for  passing  the  result  of 
the  ballots  up  from  the  platform  to  the  roof  of  the 
building,  and  through  the  skylight,  men  being  station 
ed  above  to  convey  speedily  the  intelligence  to  the  mul 
titude  in  the  streets. 

A  large  procession  was  formed  by  the  various  delega 
tions,  to  march  to  "the  hall,  preceded  by  bands  of 
music. 

As  the  delegates  entered  on  the  platform  the  several 
distinguished  men  were  greeted  with  rounds  of  applause 
by  the  audience. 

The  Convention  then  voted  to  proceed  to  ballot  for 
a  candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States. 

Wm.  M.  Evarts,  of  New- York,  did  not  rise  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  speech,  but  only  to  ask  if  at  this 
time -it  is  in  order  to  put  candidates  in  nomination. 

The  President  :  The  Chair  considers  it  in  order  to 
name  candidates  without  debate. 

Win.  M.  Evarts  rose  and  said — I  beg  leave  to  offer 
the  name  of  Wm.  H.  Seward  as  a  candidate  before  this 
Convention,  for  the  nomination  of  President  of  the 
United  States. 


126  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

This  nomination  was  received  with  loud  and  long- 
continued  applause. 

Mr.  Judd,  of  Illinois,  rose  and  said  :  Mr.  President, 
I  beg  leave  to  offer,  as  a  candidate  before  this  Conven 
tion  for  President  of  the  United  States,  the  name  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  of  Illinois. 

The  crowded  audience  greeted  this  nomination  with 
perfectly  deafening  applause,  the  shouts  swelling  into 
a  perfect  roar,  and  being  continued  for  several  minutes, 
the  wildest  excitement  and  enthusiasm  prevailing. 

Mr.  Dudley,  of  New-Jersey,  presented  the  name  of 
Wm.  L.  Dayton. 

Gov.  Keeder,  of  Pennsylvania  :  The  State  of  Penn 
sylvania  desires  to  present,  as  her  candidate,  the  name 
of  Simon  Cameron. 

Mr.  Carter,  of  Ohio,  put  forward  the  name  of  Salmon 
P.  Chase,  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Maryland — I  am  instructed  by  the 
State  of  Indiana  to  second  the  nomination  of  Abra 
ham  Lincoln.  [Another  outburst  of  enthusiastic  ap 
plause  from  the  body  of  the  Hall,  mingled  with  some 
hisses.] 

Francis  P.  Blair  of  Missouri  nominated  Edward 
Bates  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  Blair  of  Michigan  said,  on  the  part  of  Michigan, 
I  desire  to  say  that  the  Kepublicans  of  that  State 
second  the  nomination  of  William  H.  Seward  for  the 
Presidency. 

Tremendous  applause  followed  this  speech,  thou 
sands  of  those  present  rising  and  waving  their  hats  and 
handkerchiefs,  and  swelling  the  applause  to  a  thunder 
ing  roar  through  several  minutes. 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  127 

Tom  Corwin  of  Ohio  nominated  John  McLean  of 
Ohio  for  the  Presidency.  [Loud  applause.] 

Carl  Schurz  of  Wisconsin,  on  the  part  of  his  State, 
here  rose  and  seconded  the  nomination  of  William  H. 
Seward. 

Upon  this  another  scene  of  the  greatest  enthusiasm 
and  tumultuous  excitement  ensued. 

Mr.  North  of  Minnesota  also  seconded,  on  the  part 
of  Minnesota,  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Seward.  [Tre 
mendous  applause.] 

Mr.  Wilson  of  Kansas — The  delegates  and  people  of 
Kansas  second  the  nomination.  [Kenewed  cheers.] 

Mr.  Delano  of  Ohio,  on  the  part  of  a  large  number 
of  people  of  Ohio — I  desire  to  second  the  nomination 
of  the  man  who  can  split  rails  and  maul  Democrats, 
Abraham  Lincoln.  [Bounds  of  applause  by  Lincoln 
men.] 

A  delegate  from  Iowa  also  seconded  the  nomination 
of  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the  part  of  that  State,  amidst  re 
newed  applause  and  excitement. 

A  Yoice — Abe  Lincoln  has  it  by  the  sound  now. 
Let  us  ballot. 

Judge  Logan  of  Illinois — Mr.  President,  in  order  or 
out  of  order,  I  propose  this  Convention  and  audience 
give  three  cheers  for  the  man  who  is  evidently  their 
nominee. 

The  President — If  the  Convention  will  get  over  this 
irrepressible  excitement,  the  roll  will  be  called. 

After  some  further  excitement  the  calling  of  the 
roll  commenced,  the  applause  at  the  different  announce 
ments  being  with  difficulty  checked. 

When  Maryland  was  called,  the  Chairman  of  the 


128  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

delegation  cast  the  vote  of  the  State  for  Bates,  two 
delegates  claiming  their  right  to  individual  votes. 

After  some  discussion  the  Convention  rejected  the 
votes  as  cast  by  the  Chairman,  and  received  the  votes 
of  the  delegates  separately. 

On  the  first  ballot  Mr.  Seward  re'ceived  173^  votes  ; 
Mr.  Lincoln,  102  ;  and  Mr.  Bates,  48.  The  balance 
were  divided  between  Messrs.  Cameron,  Chase,  McLean, 
Wade,  etc.,  etc.  The  States  voting  for  Mr.  Lincoln, 
were  Illinois,  Indiana,  and,  in  part,  Maine,  New- 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania, 
Yirginia,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Iowa. 

The  second  ballot  was  then  taken. 

Mr.  Cameron's  name  was  withdrawn. 

For  Mr.  Lincoln. 

New-Hampshire 9         Delaware 6 

Vermont 10        Kentucky 9 

Rhode  Island 3         Ohio 14 

Pennsylvania 48        Iowa 5 

The  whole  vote  for  Lincoln  was  181. 

For  Mr.  Seward. 

Massachusetts 22        Kentucky 7 

New-Jersey 4        Texas 6 

Pennsylvania 2£        Nebraska 3 

The  whole  vote  for  Mr.  Seward  was  184-j. 

Bates 35        Cameron 2 

McLean .' 8        Dayton 10 

Chase 42&        C.  M.  Clay 2 

The  third  ballot  was  taken  amid  excitement,  and 
cries  for  "  the  ballot."  Intense  feeling  existed  during 
the  ballot,  each  vote  being  awarded  in  breathless  si 
lence  and  expectancy. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  129 

For  Mr,  Lincoln. 

Massachusetts 8        Maryland 9 

Ehode  Island 5        Kentucky 13 

New- Jersey 8         Ohio  (applause)   29 

Pennsylvania  . '. 52         Oregon 14 

This  gave  Lincoln  230-^  votes,  or  within  1-j  of  a 
nomination. 

Mr.  Andrew  of  Massachusetts  then  rose  and  correct 
ed  the  vote  of  Massachusetts,  by  changing  four  votes, 
and  giving  them  to  Lincoln,  thus  nominating  him  "by 
2^-  majority. 

The  Convention  immediately  became  wildly  excited. 

A  large  portion  of  the  delegates,  who  had  kept  tally, 
at  once  said  the  struggle  was  decided,  and  half  the 
Convention  rose,  cheering,  shouting,  and  waving  hats. 
•  The  audience  took  up  the  cheers,  and  the  confusion 
became  deafening. 

State  after  State  rose,  striving  to  change  their  votes 
to  the  winning  candidate,  but  the  noise  and  enthusi 
asm  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  delegates  to  make 
themselves  heard. 

Mr.  McCrillis  of  Maine,  making  himself  heard,  said 
that  the  young  giant  of  the  West  •  is  now  of  age. 
Maine  now  casts  for  him  her  16  votes. 

Mr.  Andrew  of  Massachusetts  changed  the  vote  of 
that  State,  giving  18  to  Mr.  Lincoln  and  8  to  Mr. 
Seward.  «* 

Intelligence  of  the  nomination  was  now  conveyed 
to  the  men  on  the  roof  of  the  building,  who  imme 
diately  made  the  outside  multitude  aware  of  the  result. 
The  first  roar  of  the  cannon  soon  mingled  itself  with 
the  cheers  of  the  people,  and  the  same  moment  a  man 
6* 


130  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

appeared  in  the  hall  bringing  a  large  painting  of  Mr. 
Lincoln.  The  scene  at  the  time  beggars  description  ; 
11,000  people  inside,  and  20,000  or  25,000  outside, 
were  yelling  and  shouting  at  once.  Two  cannon  sent 
forth  roar  after  roar  in  quick  succession.  Delegates 
bore  up  the  sticks  and  boards  bearing  the  names  of  the 
several  States,  and  waved  them  aloft  over  their  heads, 
and  the  vast  multitude  before  the  platform  were  waving 
hats  and  handkerchiefs.  Tbe  whole  scene  was  one  of 
the  wildest  enthusiasm. 

Mr.  Brown,  of  Mo.,  desired  to  change  18  votes  of 
Missouri  for  the  gallant  son  of  the  West,  Abraham 
Lincoln  ;  Iowa,  Connecticut,  Kentucky,  and  Minne 
sota,  also  changed  their  votes.  The  result  of  the  third 
ballot  was  announced  : 

Whole  number  of  votes  cast , 466 

Necessary  to  a  choice 234 

Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  received  354,  and  was  declared 
duly  nominated. 

The  States  still  voting  for  Seward  were  Massachu 
setts,  8  ;  New- York,  70  ;  New-Jersey,  5  ;  Pennsylva 
nia,  *  ;  Maryland,  2  ;  Michigan,  12  ;  Wisconsin,  10  ; 
California,  3— total,  110L 

Mr.  Dayton  received  one  vote  from  New-Jersey,  and 
Mr.  McLean  half  a  vote  from  Pennsylvania. 

The  result  was  received  with  renewed  applause. 

When  silence  was  restored,  Wm.  M.  Evarts  came 
forward  on  the  Secretary's  table,  and  spoke  as  follows : 

"  Mr.  Chairman,  Gentlemen  of  the  National  Con 
vention  : — The  State  of  New- York,  by  a  full  delega 
tion,  with  complete  unanimity  in  purpose  at  home, 
came  to  the  Convention  and  , presented  its  choice,  one 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  131 

of  its  citizens,  who  had  served  the  State  from  boyhood 
up,  and  labored  for  and  loved  it.  We  came  here,  a 
great  State,  with,  as  we  thought,  a  great  statesman 
(applause),  and  our  love  of  the  great  Kepublic,  from 
which  we  are  all  delegates.  The  great  Kepublic  of  the 
American  Union,  and  our  love  for  the  great  Republi 
can  party  of  the  Union,  and  our  love  for  our  states 
man  and  candidate,  made  us  think  we  did  our  duty  to 
the  country,  and  the  whole  country,  in  expressing  our 
preference  and  love  for  him.  (Applause.)  But,  gen 
tlemen,  it  was  from  Governor  Seward  that  most  of  us 
learned  to  love  Republican  principles  and  the  Republi 
can  party.  (Cheers.)  His  fidelity  to  the  country,  the 
Constitution,  and  the  laws — his  fidelity  to  the  party 
and  the  principle  that  majorities  govern — his  interest 
in  the  advancement  of  our  party  to  its  victory,  that 
our  country  may  rise  to  its  true  glory,  induces  me  to 
declare  that  I  speak  his  sentiments,  as  I  do  the  united 
opinion  of  our  delegation,  when  I  move,  sir,  as  I  do 
now,  that  the  nomination  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  of  Il 
linois,  as  the  Republican  candidate  for  the  suffrages  of 
the  whole  country  for  the  office  of  Chief  Magistrate 
of  the  American  Union,  be  made  unanimous."  (Ap 
plause,  and  three  cheers  for  New- York.) 

The  life-size  portrait  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was  here 
exhibited  from  the  platform,  amid  renewed  cheers. 

Mr.  Andrews,  of  Massachusetts,  on  the  part  of  the 
united  delegation  of  that  State,  seconded  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  of  New- York,  that  the  nomination 
be  made  unanimous. 

Eloquent  speeches,  endorsing  the  nominee,  were  also 
made  by  Carl  Schurz,  P.  P.  Blair,  of  Missouri,  and 


132  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Mr.  Browning,  of  Illinois,  all  of  which,  breathed  a 
spirit  of  confidence  and  enthusiasm. 

At  the  close,  three  hearty  cheers  were  given  for 
New-York,  and  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  made 
unanimous. 

With  loud  cheers  for  Lincoln,  the  Convention  ad 
journed  till  five  o'clock. 

On  the  first  ballot,  in  the  evening  session,  Mr.  Ham- 
lin,  of  Maine,  received  194  votes  for  the  Vice-Presi 
dency,  and  was  nominated  with  enthusiasm. 

THE    RATIFICATION    BY    THE    PEOPLE. 

Everywhere,  throughout  the  land,  in  New-York  as 
well  as  Illinois,  in  Pennsylvania  as  well  as  Indiana, 
everywhere,  the  voice  of  the  people  has  gone  up  in 
shouts  of  joy  over  the  nomination  of  Lincoln  and 
Hainlin.  Even  from  Albany,  where  the  friends  of  Mr. 
Seward  were  so  strong,  comes  a  despatch  like  the  fol 
lowing,  dated  the  night  of  the  day  on  which  the  nom 
inations  were  made  : 

"Nine  o'clock,  p.  m. — The  Eepublicans  of  this  city 
are  now  fairly  waked  up,  and  the  wildest  excitement 
prevails  in  regard  to  the  nomination  of  Lincoln.  State 
street  is  a  perfect  sea  of  fire  from  burning  tar  barrels. 
The  whole  heavens  are  illuminated  with  a  red  glare, 
cannon  is  firing,  music  is  playing,  and  the  people  are 
shouting  on  State  street  and  Broadway.  Both  streets 
are  literally  jammed  with  men  of  all  parties,  who  are 
earnestly  discussing  the  action  of  the  Convention. 

"  The  Republicans  of  the  city  are  now  more  reconciled 
to  the  nomination,  and  unite  in  hearty  approval  of  it. 
They  consider  that  while  Lincoln  may  not  be  as  strong 
in  the  State  as  Seward,  he  will  be  less  objectionable 
throughout  the  Union. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  133 

"  Since  the  reception  of  the  successful  laying  of  the 
Atlantic  cable,  no  more  animated  scene  has  ever  been 
witnessed  in  this  city  than  has  been  seen  this  evening. 

"  In  New- York  two  six-pounders  were  brought  to  the 
Park,  and  fired  each  a  hundred  times — one  of  them  by 
order  of  the  Republican  General  Committee,  and  the 
other  under  the  patronage  of  private  citizens.  Besides 
these  the  Central  Committee  ordered  one  hundred  guns 
to  be  fired  in  Madison  and  Hamilton  squares  respective 
ly.  In  Mount  Morris  square,  also,  the  big  gun  was 
brought  out,  and  a  hundred  rounds  announced  to  the 
citizens  the  nomination  of  Lincoln  and  Hamlin.  Great 
numbers  of  enthusiastic  Republicans  gathered  in  the 
square,  and  the  excitement  was  intense." 

In  Philadelphia  :  "  The  Eepublicans  opened  their 
campaign  by  an  immense  mass  meeting  in  Independence 
Square.  JOHN  B.  MYERS,  Esq.  presided  at  the  main 
stand,  and  three  other  meetings  were  organized — two 
at  opposite  angles  of  the  square  and  one  within  the 
State-House.  The  meeting  having  been  called  to  rati 
fy  the  nominations  made  by  the  Chicago  Convention, 
this  was  done  in  a  series  of  resolutions  highly  eulogistic 
of  the  candidates  and  approving  and  adopting  the  plat 
form  on  which  they  have  been  placed.  Speeches  were 
delivered  by  Mr.  Senator  TRUMBULL,  of  Illinois  ; 
CHARLES  K.  TRAIN,  of  Massachusetts  ;  Wm.  M. 
DUNN,  of  Indiana  ;  ORRIS  S.  FERRY,  of  Connecticut ; 
JAMES  H.  CAMPBELL,  of  Pennsylvania  ;  JOHN  SHER 
MAN,  of  Ohio  ;  G.  A.  GROW,  of  Pennsylvania  ;  JUSTIN 
S.  MORRIL,  of  Vermont ;  M.  S.  WILKINSON,  of  Min 
nesota  ;  and  other  distinguished  gentlemen.  The  as 
semblage,  in  the  display  of  numbers  and  enthusiasm, 
has  rarely  if  ever  been  surpassed.  Ward  processions 
marched  to  the  square  with,  bands  of  music,  fireworks, 


134  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

transparencies,  rails,  etc.  ;  and  when  the  series  of  meet 
ings  concluded,  at  about  half-past  ten  o'clock,  the 
multitude  then  proceeded  to  the  Continental  hotel  in 
compliment  to  the  distinguished  speakers. 

In  a  speech  at  a  Republican  ratification  meeting  at 
Harrisburg,  Senator  Cameron,  while  declaring  that  he 
had  hoped  for  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Seward,  described 
Mr.  Lincoln  as  "  a  candidate  less  known  in  public  life, 
perhaps,  but  who,  on  all  occasions,  when  demands  have 
been  made1  upon  his  zeal  and  patriotism,  has  borne  him 
self  bravely  and  honorably.  In  regard  to  the  great 
interests  of  Pennsylvania,  the  subject  of  protection  to 
labor,  his  record  is  clear,  emphatic,  and  beyond  suspi 
cion.  He  will  require.no  endorsement  to  convince  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania  that  their  interests  will  be  per 
fectly  secure  in  his  hands.  Himself  a  laborer  in  early 
life,  he  has  struggled  with  adversity  until  he  has  reach 
ed  the  proud  position  he  now  occupies,  by  the  single 
aid  of  a  strong  purpose,  seconded  by  an  unyielding 
will ;  and  it  is  not  in  the  hearts  of  Pennsylvania^  to 
doubt  such  a  man.  The  laboring  men  of  this  State 
ever  control  the  ballot-box  when  they  arise  in  the  maj 
esty  of  their  strength.  Let  them  go  to  the  election 
next  autumn,  and,  while  they  are  securing  their  own 
interests,  let  them  elevate  to  the  highest  place  in  their 
election  gift,  Abraham  Lincoln,  a  workingman  like 
themselves." 

At  Washington,  D.  C.,  an  enthusiastic  ratification 
meeting  was  held — the  first  time  such  a  meeting  has 
been  held  in  that  city. 

The  public  press  was  never  before  so  unanimous  in 
its  commendation  of  a  candidate. 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  135 

The  1ST.  Y.  Tribune  says  : 

"  While  Mr.  Lincoln's  position  as  a  Kepublican  ren 
ders  him  satisfactory  to  the  most  zealous  member  of 
the  party,  the  moderation  of  his  character,  and  the 
conservative  tendencies  of  his  mind,  long  improved  and 
well  known  of  all  men  in  public  life,  commend  him  to 
every  section  of  the  opposition.  There  is  no  good 
reason  why  Americans  and  Whigs,  and  in  short  all 
who  are  inspired  rather  by  patriotism  than  by  party 
feeling,  should  not  rally  to  his  support.  Kepublicans 
and  conservatives,  those  who  dread  the  extension  of 
Slavery,  and  those  who  dread  the  progress  of  adminis 
trative  and  legislative  corruption,  may  be  assured  that 
in  him  both  these  evils  will  find  a  stern  and  immovable 
antagonist  and  an  impassable  barrier.  At  the  same 
time,  as  a  man  of  the  people,  raised  by  his  own  genius 
and  integrity  from  the  humblest  to  the  highest  position, 
having  made  for  himself  an  honored  name  as  a  lawyer, 
an  advocate,  a  popular  orator,  a  statesman,  and  a  man, 
the  industrious  and  intelligent  masses  of  the  country 
may  well  hail  his  nomination  with  a  swelling  tide  of 
enthusiasm,  of  which  the  wild  and  prolonged  outbursts 
at  Chicago  yesterday  are  the  fitting  prelude  and  be 
ginning. 

We  need  hardly  say  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
though  it  cannot  be  accomplished  without  arduous  and 
persistent  efforts,  is  eminently  a  thing  that  can  be  done. 
The  disruption  of  the  Democratic  Party,  now  perhaps 
less  likely  to  be  repaired  than  before  his  nomination, 
the  fact  that  he  was  put  forward  by  one  of  the  doubt 
ful  States,  Illinois,  and  nominated  in  great  measure  by 
votes  from  two  others,  namely  Pennsylvania  and  New- 
Jersey,  the  universal  desire  of  the  country  to  settle  the 
vexatious  Slavery  question  in  accordance  with  the 
views  of  the  fathers — all  these  are  powerful  in  behalf 
of  the  Chicago  ticket." 

The  Springfield,  Mass.,  Republican  : 


136  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

"  In  ways,  which  it  is  useless  to  mention  now,  we 
are,  of  course,  disappointed  ;  in  ways,  which  we  shall 
have  frequent  occasion  to  mention  between  this  date 
and  November,  we  are  glad  and  grateful.  The  nomi 
nee  is  a  positive  man — a  live  man — and  in  these  re 
spects  matches  well  with  the  platform,  which  is  bold, 
manly,  and  comprehensive.  The  many  friends  of  Mr. 
Seward,  particularly,  will  feel  aggrieved  by  this  result, 
but  it  could  not  have  been  otherwise.  The  States 
which  must  be  carried  to  secure  a  Kepublican  triumph 
did  not  dare  to  assume  Mr.  Seward,  and  the  forcing  up 
on  them  of  a  name  that  would  weaken  them,  and  de 
velop  opposition — organized  and  consolidated — would 
have  been  neither  wise  nor  fair.  We  predict  for  the 
ticket  a  popularity  that  will  grow,  as  the  campaign  ad 
vances,  into  a  furor  of  enthusiasm.  We  predict,  fur 
thermore,  that  it  will  be  elected." 

The  Boston  Atlas  : 

"  As  in  1840  and  1848,  the  Whig  party  passed  by 
the  prominent  names  before  the  Conventions  at  the  out 
set,  and  as  in  1844  and  in  1852  the  Democratic  party 
did  the  same  thing,  and  elected  men  who  were  not  the 
most  prominently  before  the  people,  the  Republicans 
have  in  this  instance  taken  up  men  fresh  from  the  peo 
ple,  of  broad  and  statesmanlike  qualities,  of  unques 
tioned  abilities,  and  of  tried  patriotism,  in  what  is  to 
bo  to  them  a  great,  and,  as  we  confidently  believe,  a 
triumphantly  successful  campaign.  In  a  nomination 
of  this  nature,  there  must  have  been  necessarily  many 
preferences  from  people  of  different  sections,  some  of 
which  were  to  be  set  aside.  Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Chase, 
Mr.  Cameron,  Mr.  Banks,  Mr.  Bates,  and  Mr.  McLean,  all 
have  friends  presented  their  names  for  the  first  or  sec 
ond  place  on  the  ticket.  For  ourselves,  we  might  have 
had  personal  preferences  equally  strong  with  others. 
But  at  a  time  like  this,  personal  preferences  are  to  be 
subordinated  to  the  will  of  the  majority,  as  expressed 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  137 

in  the  Convention,  as  to  the  success  of  the  ticket  as  in 
dicated  by  the  judgment  of  that  body." 

The  N.  Y.  Evening  Post  : 

"  Our  country  is  not,  however,  distinguished  alone  for 
its  stupendous  physical  progress,  for  those  grand  tri 
umphs  over  nature  which  have  sprinkled  the  whole  con 
tinent  with  cities,  and  connected  its  remotest  parts  by 
railroads  and  telegraphs.  It  has  also  worked  out  for  it 
self  a  peculiar  social  and  political  constitution.  Pla 
cing,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  mankind,  the 
controlling  power  of  government  in  the  hands  of  the 
whole  people,  it  has  constructed  a  vast  fabric  of  socie 
ty  on  that  new  basis.  It  has  said  to  all  ranks  and  or 
ders  of  men,  here  you  are  free  ;  here  you  are  equal  in 
rights  to  each  other  ;  here  the  careers  of  life  are  open 
to  every  comer  ;  men  are  thrown  upon  their  own 
intrinsic  manhood  for  their  reliance,  and  it  belongs  to 
each  one  to  become  the  architect  of  his  own  fortunes. 
This  unlimited  freedom  of  action,  though  it  has  pro 
duced  some  social  evils,  has  produced  much  greater 
good,  and  we  do  not  believe  that  there  is  a  nation  on 
the  globe  in  which  the  masses  of  the  people  are  so 
prosperous,  so  intelligent,  and  so  contented  as  they  are 
in  this  nation.  What  more  striking  illustration  of  its 
effects  could  we  have,  than  the  rise  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to 
his  present  importance  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  ?  Is 
he  not  pre-eminently  the  child  of  our  free  institutions  ? 
A  poor  orphan,  without  education  or  friends,  by  the 
labor  of  his  hands,  by  the  energy  of  his  will,  by  the 
manliness  and  probity  of  his  character,  he  raises  him 
self  to  fortune  and  fame  ;  a  powerful  party,  which 
contains,  to  say  the  least,  as  much  virtue  and  intelli 
gence  as  any  other,  assigns  him,  without  intrigues  or 
efforts  of  his  own,  the  first  place  in  its  regards,  making 
him  the  bearer  of  its  standard  in  a  momentous  politi 
cal  conflict  ;  and  in  a  few  months  more  we  may  see  the 
once  friendless  boy  the  occupant  of  the  Presidential 


138  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

chair.  Thus  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  is  strikingly 
embodied  in  his  career,  which  is  itself  an  admirable 
commentary  on  their  excellence." 

And  the  conservative  Philadelphia  North  Ameri 
can  : 

"  The  people  of  Pennsylvania  are  eminently  practi 
cal  in  all  their  views  and  actions.  We  are  not  hasty 
nor  inconsiderate.  We  take  time  to  reflect  and  gener 
ally  act  intelligently.  It  has  been  so  in  this  case. 
Our  State  entered  into  the  canvass  at  Chicago  with 
a  spirit,  a  determination,  and  an  indomitable  energy 
which  completely  surprised  the  gentlemen  from  the  ex 
treme  North,  and  served  us  a  rallying  point  for  all  the 
moderates.  The  Pennsylvania  delegation  was  gener 
ally  accredited  with  the  selfish  purpose  of  going  to  Chi 
cago  to  secure  'the  nomination  of  one  of  our  own  sons. 
Such  was  far  from  the  truth.  When  the  ground  was 
surveyed,  it  was  found  that  from  the  Atlantic  seacoast 
of  Jersey  to  the  Mississippi  river,  in  the  whole  belt  of 
States  south  of  New- York  and  Michigan,  there  was  a 
settled  determination  not  to  take  Mr.  Seward,  nor,  in 
deed,  any  extreme  man.  Yet  ths  councils  of  these 
States  were  divided,  and  no  chance  of  concentration 
seemed  to  present  itself.  At  length  Pennsylvania,  by 
the  force  of  her  numbers  and  courage,  solved  the  prob 
lem.  She  sacrificed  her  own  canditate,  and  rushed 
over  to  the  side  of  the  Illinois  favorite,  Lincoln. 

"  This  nomination  was  made  by  Pennsylvania,  and  it 
could  not  have  been  accomplished  without  her.  She 
brought  together,  for  the  first  time,  this  noble  phalanx 
of  central  free  States,  and  gave  them  a  community  of 
feeling  and  purpose.  From  the  first  moment  that  this 
movement  was  begun  victory  was  no  longer  doubtful. 
Pennsylvania  demanded  a  protectionist,  and  so  did  all 
the  States  of  this  combination.  Her  demand  could 
not  be  refused,  and  in  Mr.  Lincoln  we  have  one  whose 
devotion  to  American  interests  has  been  lifelong. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  139 

Sprung,  too,  from  good  old  Pennsylvania  stock,  he 
was  peculiarly  entitled  to  her  support. 

"  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  clear  that  our  gal 
lant  State  has  gained  a  signal  triumph  at  Chicago,  and 
one,  too,  the  effects  of  which  are  likely  to  prove  lasting. 
In  the  demonstration  of  joy  with  which  the  nomination 
has  been  hailed  at  Easton,  Westchester,  and  other 
points  throughout  the  interior,  we  read  the  indications 
of  the  popular  feeling.  The  belief  is  general  that  this 
is  a  Pennsylvania  ticket,  and  must  receive  the  vote  of 
the  State.  In  fact,  the  people  of  this  commonwealth 
are  determined  not  to  permit  the  election  of  another 
Democratic  President,  no  matter  with  how  much 
clamor  any  particular  section  of  the  country  may  de 
mand  it.  The  interests  of  the  whole  country  must  be 
attended  to  first,  and  those  of  sections  afterward.  We 
must  purge  the  government  of  the  corruptions  which 
befoul  every  department  at  Washington.  We  must 
substitute  honest,  and  patriotic,  and  sensible  men  for 
reckless,  and  intriguing,  and  plunder-seeking  faction- 
ists,  to  whom  the  interests  of  humanity,  the  progress 
of  civilization  and  enlightenment,  and  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  citizenship,  are  too  small  for  serious  con 
sideration." 

And  so  we  might  go  on,  quoting  hundreds  of  pages 
of  similar  remarks  from  the  American  Press. 

MR.    LINCOLN   AT    HOME. 

The  Committee  appointed  by  the  National  Convention 
to  wait  upon  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  inform  him  of  his  nomi 
nation,  immediately  performed  their  duty.  A  corre 
spondent  of  the  Chicago  Journal  gives  the  subjoined 
graphic  account  of  the  visit  of  the  Committee  : 

"  The  excursion  train  bearing  the  Committee  appoint 
ed  by  the  National  Convention  at  Chicago  to  wait  on 


140  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

Mr.  Lincoln  and  notify  him  of  his  nomination,  consist 
ing  of  the  President  of  the  Convention,  the  Hon.  Geo. 
Ashmun  of  Mass.,  and  the  chairmen  of  the  different 
State  delegations,  arrived  at  Springfield,  Friday  even 
ing  at  seven  o'clock. 

"  A  great  crowd  was  awaiting  them  at  the  depot,  and 
greeted  their  coming  with  enthusiastic  shouts.  From 
the  depot  they  inarched  to  the  hotel,  accompanied  by 
the  crowd,  and  two  or  three  bands  discoursing  stirring 
music.  The  appearance  and  names  of  the  more  distin 
guished  delegates  were  received  with  vociferous  ap 
plause,  especially  the  venerable  and  famous  Francis  P. 
Blair  of  Maryland,  the  Hon.  E.  D.  Morgan,  Governor 
of  New- York,  and  Governor  Boutwell  of  Massachu 
setts. 

"  When  they  arrived  at  the  hotel  the  crowd,  still 
increasing,  deployed  off  to  the  State-House  square,  to 
give  vent  to  their  enthusiasm  in  almost  continual 
cheers,  and  listen  to  fervent  speeches. 

"  Having  partaken  of  a  bountiful  supper,  the  delegates 
proceeded  quietly,  by  such  streets  as  would  escape  the 
crowd,  to  the  residence  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Quite  a  num 
ber  of  outsiders  were  along,  among  whom  were  half  a 
dozen  editors,  including  the  Hon.  Henry  J.  Eaymond  of 
The  New-  York  Times. 

"Among  the  delegates  composing  the  Committee,  were 
many  of  the  most  distinguished  men  in  that  great  Con 
vention,  such  as  Mr.  Evarts  of  New- York,  the  accom 
plished  and  eloquent  spokesman  of  the  delegation  from 
the  Empire  State,  and  friend  of  Mr.  Seward  ;  Judge 
Kelly  of  Pennsylvania,  whose  tall  form  and  sonorous 
eloquence  excited  so  much  attention  ;  Mr.  Andrew  of 
Massachusetts,  the  round-faced,  handsome  man,  who 
made  such  a  beautiful  and  telling  speech  on  behalf  of 
the  old  Bay  State,  in  seconding  the  motion  to  make 
Lincoln's  nomination  unanimous  ;  Mr.  Simmons,  the 
gray-headed  United  States  Senator  from  Khode  Island; 
Mr.  Ashmun,  the  President  of  the  Convention,  so  long 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  141 

the  bosom  friend  and  ardent  admirer  of  Daniel  Web 
ster,  and  the  leader  of  the  Massachusetts  Whigs  ;  the 
veteran  Blair,  and  his  gallant  sons,  Frank  P.  and 
Montgomery  ;  brave  old  Blakie  of  Kentucky  ;  Galla 
gher,  the  literary  man  of  Ohio  ;  burly,  loud-voiced 
Cartter  of  Ohio,  who  announced  the  four  votes  that 
gave  Lincoln»the  nomination,  and  others  that  I  have 
not  time  to  mention. 

"  In  a  few  minutes  (it  now  being  about  8  P.  M.),  they 
were  at  Lincoln's  house — an  elegant  two-story  dwell 
ing,  fronting  west,  of  pleasing  exterior,  with  a  neat 
and  roomy  appearance,  situated  in  the  quiet  part  of  the 
town,  surrounded  with  shrubbery.  As  they  were  pass 
ing  in  at  the  gate  and  up  the  steps,  two  handsome  lads 
of  eight  or  ten  years  met  them  with  a  courteous  '  Good 
evening,  gentlemen/ 

"  'Are  you  Mr.  Lincoln's  son  ? '  said  Mr.  Evarts  of 
New-York.  (  Yes,  sir/  said  the  boy.  '  Then  let's 
shake  hands  ;'  and  they  began  greeting  him  so  warmly 
as  to  excite  the  younger  one's  attention,  who  had  stood 
silently  by  the  opposite  gatepost,  and  he  sang  out, 
1  I'm  a  Lincoln,  too  ;'  whereupon  several  delegates, 
amid  much  laughter,  saluted  the  young  Lincoln. 

Having  all  collected  in  the  large  north  parlor,  Mr. 
Ashmun  addressed  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  stood  at  the  east 
end  of  the  room,  as  follows  : 

"  '  I  have,  sir,  the  honor,  in  behalf  of  the  gentlemen 
who  are  present,  a  Committee  appointed  by  the  Eepub- 
lican  Convention,  recently  assembled  at  Chicago,  to 
discharge  a  most  pleasant  duty.  We  have  come,  sir, 
under  a  vote  of  instructions  to  that  Committee,  to 
notify  you  that  you  have  been  selected  by  the  Conven 
tion  of  the  Kepublicans  at  Chicago,  for  President  of  the 
United  States.  They  instruct  us,  sir,  to  notify  you  of 
that  selection,  and  that  Committee  deem  it  not  only 
respectful  to  yourself,  but  appropriate  to  the  important 
matter  which  they  have  in  hand,  that  they  should 
come  in  person,  and  present  to  you  the  authentic  evi- 


142  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

dence  of  the  action  of  that  Convention  ;  and,  sir,  with 
out  any  phrase  which  shall  either  be  considered  person 
ally  plauditory  to  yourself,  or  which  shall  have  any 
reference  to  the  principles  involved  in  the  questions 
which  are  connected  with  your  nomination,  I  desire  to 
present  to  you  the  letter  which  has  been  prepared,  and 
which  informs  you  of  the  nomination,  and  with  it  the 
platform,  resolutions,  and  sentiments,  which  the  Con 
vention  adopted.  Sir,  at  your  convenience,  we  shall 
be  glad  to  receive  from  you  such  a  response  as  it  may 
be  your  pleasure  to  giv£  us/ 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  listened  with  a  countenance  grave  and 
earnest,  almost  to  sternness,  regarding  Mr.  Ashmun 
with  the  profoundest  attention,  and  at  the  conclusipn  of 
that  gentleman's  remarks,  after  an  impressive  pause, 
he  replied  in  a  clear  but  subdued  voice,  with  that  per 
fect  enunciation,  which  always  marks  his  utterance, 
and  a  dignified  sincerity  of  manner  suited  to  the  man 
and  the  occasion,  in  the  following  words  : 


.  CHAIRMAN,  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  COM 
MITTEE  :  I  tender  to  you,  and  through  you  to  the  Ke- 
publican  National  Convention,  and  all  the  people 
represented  in  it,  my  profoundest  thanks  for  the  high 
honor  done  me,  which  you  now  formally  announce. 
Deeply,  and  even  painfully  sensible  of  the  great  respon 
sibility  which  is  inseparable  from  this  high  honor  —  a 
responsibility  which  I  could  almost  wish  had  fallen 
upon  some  one  of  the  far  more  eminent  men  and  ex 
perienced  statesmen  whose  distinguished  names  wen 
before  the  Convention,  I  shall,  by  your  leave,  conside, 
more  fully  the  resolutions  of  the  Convention,  denomi 
nated  the  platform,  and  without  unnecessary  or  un 
reasonable  delay,  respond  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  in 
writing,  not  doubting  that  the  platform  will  be  found 
satisfactory,  and  the  nomination  gratefully  accepted. 

"  l  And  now  I  will  not  longer  defer  the  pleasure  of 
taking  you,  and  each  of  you,  by  the  hand/ 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  143 

"  Mr.  Ashmun  then  introduced  the  delegates  person 
ally  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  shook  them  heartily  by  the 
hand.  Gov.  Morgan,  Mr.  Blair,  Senator  Simmons,  Mr. 
Welles,  and  Mr.  Fogg,  of  Connecticut,  were  first  in 
troduced  ;  then  came  hearty  old  Mr.  Blakie,  of  Ken 
tucky,  Lincoln's  native  State,  and,  of  course,  they  had 
to  compare  notes,  inquire  up  old  neighbors,  and,  if  the 
time  had  allowed,  they  would  soon  have  started  to 
tracing  out  the  old  pioneer  families.  Major  Ben. 
Eggleston,  of  Cincinnati,  was  next,  and  his  greeting- 
and  reception  were  equally  hearty.  Tall  Judge  Kelly, 
of  Pennsylvania,  was  then  presented  by  Mr.  Ashmun 
to  Mr.  Lincoln.  As  they  shook  hands,  each  eyed  the 
other's  ample  proportions,  with  genuine  admiration — 
Lincoln,  for  once,  standing  erect  as  an  Indian  during 
this  evening,  and  showing  his  tall  form  in  its  full 
dignity. 

"  '  What's  your  height  ?'  inquired  Lincoln. 

" i  Six  feet  three  ;  what  is  yours,  Mr.  Lincoln  !' 
said  Judge  Kelly,  in  his  round,  deliberate  tone. 

"  i  Six  feet  four/  replied  Lincoln. 
"  i  Then/  said  Judge  Kelly,  '  Pennsylvania  bows 
to  Illinois.  My  dear  man,  for  years  my  heart  has  been 
aching  for  a  President  that  I  could  look  up  to,  and  I've 
found  him  at  last  in  the  land  where  we  thought  there 
were  none  but  little  giants.' 

"  Mr.  Evarts,  of  -New- York,  expressed  very  gracefully 
his  gratification  at  meeting  Mr.  Lincoln,  whom  he  had 
heard  at  Cooper  Institute,  but  where,  on  account  of 
the  pressure  and  crowd,  he  had  to  go  away  without  an 
introduction. 

"Mr.  Andrews,  of  Massachusetts,  said,  'We  claim 
you,  Mr.  Lincoln,  as  coming  from  Massachusetts,  be 
cause  all  the  old  Lincoln  name  are  from  Plymouth  Col 
ony.' 

"  c  We'll  consider  it  so  this  evening/  said  Lincoln. 

"  Various  others  were  presented,  when  Mr.  Ashmun 
asked  them  to  come  up  and  introduce  themselves. 


144  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

'  Come  up,  gentlemen/  said  Mr.  Judd, '  it's  nobody  but 
Old  Abe*  Lincoln/  The  greatest  good  feeling  pre 
vailed.  As  the  delegates  fell  back,  each  congratulated 
the  other  that  they  had  got  just  the  sort  of  man.  A 
neatly-dressed  New-Englander  remarked  to  us,  '  I  was 
afraid  I  should  meet  a  gigantic  rail-splitter,  with  the 
manners  of  a  flatboatman,  and  the  ugliest  face  in 
creation  ;  and  he's  a  complete  gentleman/ 

"  Mrs.  Lincoln  received  the  delegates  in  the  south 
parlor,  where  they  were  severally  conducted  after  their 
official  duty  was  performed.  It  will,  no  doubt,  be  a 
gratification  to  those  who  have  not  seen  this  amiable 
and  accomplished  lady  to  know  that  she  adorns  a  draw 
ing-room,  presides  over  a  table,  does  the  honors  on  an 
occasion,  like  the  present,  or  will  do  the  honors  at  the 
White-Souse,  with  appropriate  grace.  She  is  a  daugh 
ter  of  Dr.  Todd,  formerly  of  Kentucky,  and  long  one 
of  the  prominent. citizens  of  Springfield.  She  is  one 
of  three  sisters  noted  for  their  beauty  and  accomplish 
ments.  One  of  them  is  now  the  wife  of  Ninian  W. 
Edwards,  Esq.,  son  of  old  Gov.  Edwards.  Mrs.  Lin 
coln  is  now  apparently  about  35  years  of  age,  is  a  very 
handsome  woman,  with  a  vivacious  and  graceful  man 
ner  ;  is  an  interesting  and  often  sparkling  talker. 
Standing  by  her  almost  gigantic  husband,  she  appears 
petite,  but  is  really  about  the  average  height  of  ladies. 
They  have  three  sons,  two  of  them  already  mentioned, 
and  an  older  one — a  young  man  of  16  or  18  years,  now 
at  Harvard  College,  Mass. 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  bore  himself  during  the  evening  with 
dignity  and  ease.  His  kindly  and  sincere  manner,  frank 
and  honest  expression,  unaffected,  pleasant  conversa 
tion,  soon  made  every  one  feel  at  ease,  and  rendered 
the  hour  and  a  half  which  they  spent  with  him  one  of 
great  pleasure  to  the  delegates.  He  was  dressed  with 
perfect  neatness,  almost  elegance — though,  as  all  Illi- 
noians  know,  he  usually  is  as  plain  in  his  attire  as  lie 
is  modest  and  unassuming  in  deportment.  He  stood 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  145 

erect,  displaying  to  excellent  advantage  his  tall  and 
manly  figure. 

"  Perhaps  some  reader  will  he  curious  to  know  how 
'  Honest  Old  Abe'  received  the  news  of  his  nomination. 
He  had  heen  up  in  the  telegraph  office  during  the  first 
and  second  ballots  on  Friday  morning.  As  the  vote  of 
each  State  was  announced  on  the  platform  at  Chicago, 
it  was  telegraphed  to  Springfield,  and  -those  who  were 
gathered  there  figured  up  the  vote,  and  hung  over  the 
result  with  the.  same  breathless  anxiety  as  the  crowd  at 
the  Wigwam.  As  soon  as  the  second  ballot  was  taken, 
and  before  it  had  been  counted  and  announced  by  the 
secretaries,  Mr.  Lincoln  walked  over  to  the  State  Jour 
nal  office.  He  was  sitting  there  conversing  while  the 
third  ballot  was  being  taken.  When  Cartter,  of  Ohio, 
announced  the  change  of  four  votes,  giving  Lincoln  a 
majority,  and  before  the  great  tumult  of  applause  in 
the  Wigwam  had  fairly  begun,  it  was  telegraphed  to 
Springfield.  Mr.  Wilson,  telegraph  superintendent,  who 
was  in  the  office,  instantly  wrote  on  a  scrap  of  paper,, 
'  Mr.  Lincoln,  you  are  nominated  on  the  third  ballot/ 
and  gave  it  to  a  boy,  who  ran  with  it  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 
He  took  the  paper  in  his  hand,  and  looked  at  it  long 
and  silently,  not  heeding  the  noisy  exultation  of  all 
around,  and  then  rising  and  putting  the  note  in  his  vest 
pocket,  he  quietly  remarked,  c  There's  a  little  woman 
down  at  our  house  would  like  to  hear  this.  I'll  go 
down  and  tell  her/ 

"It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  people  of  Springfield 
were  delirious  with  joy  and  enthusiasm  both  that  even 
ing  and  since.  As  the  delegates  returned  to  the  hotel 
— the  sky  blazing  with  rockets,  cannon  roaring  at  in 
tervals,  bonfires  blazing  at  the  street  corners,  long  rows 
of  b.uildings  brilliantly  illuminated,  the  State-House 
overflowing  with  shouting  people,  speakers  awakening 
new  enthusiasm — -one  of  the  New-England  delegates 
remarked  that  there  were  more  enthusiasm  and  sky 
rockets  than  he  ever  saw  in  a  town  of  that  size  before. 


146  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

"  The  Ohio  delegates  brought  back  with  them  a  rail, 
one  of  the  original  three  thousand  split  by  Lincoln  in 
1830  ;  and  though  it  bears  the  marks  of  years,  is  still 
tough  enough  for  service.  It  is  for  Tom  Corwin,  who 
intends  taking  it  with  him  as  he  stumps  the  Buckeye 
State  for  honest  old  Abe." 

A  correspondent  of  the  New- York  Evening  Post  de 
scribes  his  visit  to  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  following  manner  : 

"It  had  been  reported  by  some  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  po 
litical  enemies,  that  he  was  a  man  who  lived  in  the 
6  lowest  hoosier  style/  and  I  thought  I  would  see  for 
myself.  Accordingly,  as  soon  as  the  business  of  thf 
Convention  was  closed,  I  took  the  cars  for  Springfield. 
I  foun<}  Mr.  Lincoln  living  in  a  handsome,  but  not  pre 
tentious,  double  two-story  frame  house,  having  a  wide 
hall  running  through  the  centre,  with  parlors  on  both 
sides,  neatly,  but  not  ostentatiously,  furnished.  It  was 
just  such  a  dwelling  as  a  majority  of  the  well-to-do 
residents  of  these  fine  western  towns  occupy.  Every 
thing  about  it  had  a  look  of  comfort  and  independence. 
The  library  I  remarked  in  passing,  particularly,  and  I 
was  pleased  to  see  long  rows  of  books,  which  told  of  the 
scholarly  tastes  and  culture  of  the  family. 

"  Lincoln  received  us  with  great,  and  to  me,  sur 
prising  urbanity.  I  had  seen  him  before  in  New- York, 
and  brought  with  me  an  impression  of  his  awkward 
and  ungainly  manner  ;  but  in  his  own  house,  where  he 
doubtless  feels  himself  freer  than  in  the  strange  New- 
York  circles,  he  had  thrown  this  off,  and  appeared  easy, 
if  not  graceful.  He  is,  as  you  know,  a  tall,  lank  man, 
with  a  long  neck,  and  his  ordinary  movements  are 
unusually  angular,  even  out  West.  As  soon,  however, 
as  he  gets  interested  in  conversation,  his  face  lights  up, 
and  his  attitudes  and  gestures  assume  a  certain  dignity 
and  impressiveness.  His  conversation  is  fluent,  agree 
able  and  polite.  You  see  at  once  from  it  that  he  is  a 
man  of  decided  and  original  character.  His  views  are 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  147 

all  his  own  ;  such  as  lie  has  worked  out  from  a  patient 
and  varied  scrutiny  of  life,  and  not  such  as  he  has 
learned  from  others.  Yet  he  cannot  be  called  opinion 
ated.  He  listens  to  others  like  one  eager  to  learri,  and 
his  replies  evince  at  the  same  time,  both  modesty  and 
self-reliance.  I  should  say  that  sound  cgmmon  sense 
was  the  principal  quality  of  his  mind,  although  at  times 
a  striking  phrase  or  word  reveals  a  peculiar  vein  of 
thought.  He  tells  a  story  well,  with  a  strong  idiomatic 
smack,  and  seems  to  relish  humor,  both  in  himself  and 
others.  Our  conversation  was  mainly  political,  but  of 
a  general  nature.  One  thing  Mr.  Lincoln  remarked, 
which  I  will  venture  to  repeat.  He  said  that  in  the 
coining  presidential  canvass  he  was  wholly  uncommitted 
to  any  cabals  or  cliques,  and  that  he  meant  to  keep 
himself  free  from  them,  and  from  all  pledges  and 
promises. 

"I  had  the  pleasure,  also,  of  a  brief  interview  with 
Mrs.  Lincoln,  and,  in  the  circumstances  of  these  per 
sons,  I  trust  I  am  not  trespassing  on  the  sanctities  of 
private  life,  in  saying  a  word  in  regard  to  that  lady. 
Whatever  of  awkwardness  may  be  ascribed  to  her 
husband,  there  is  none  of  it  in  her.  On  the  contrary, 
she  is  quite  a  pattern  of  lady-like  courtesy  and  polish. 
She  converses  with  freedom  and  grace,  and  is  thoroughly 
au  fait  in  all  the  little  amenities  of  society.  Mrs. 
Lincoln  belongs,  by  the  mother's  side,  to  the  Preston 
family  of  Kentucky,  has  received  a  liberal  and  refined 
education,  and  should  she  ever  reach  it,  will  adorn  the 
White-House.  She  is,  I  am  told,  a  strict  and  consis 
tent  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

"Not  a  man  of  us  who  saw  Mr.  Lincoln  but  was 
impressed  by  his  ability  and  character.  In  illustration 
of  the  last  let  me  mention  one  or  two  things,  which 
your  readers,  I  think,  will  be  pleased  to  hear.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  early  life,  as  you  know,  was  passed  in  the 
roughest  kind  of  experience  on  the  frontier,  and  among 
the  roughest  sort  of  people.  Yet,  I  have  been  told 


148  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES    OF 

that,  in  the  face  of  all  these  influences,  he  is  a  strictly 
temperate  man,  never  using  wine  or  strong  drink  ;  and 
stranger  still,  he  does  not  '  twist  the  filthy  weed/  nor 
smoke,  nor  use  profane  language  of  any  kind.  When 
we  consider  .how  common  these  vices  are  all  over  our 
country,  particularly  in  the  West,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  it  exhibits  no  little  strength  of  character  to  have 
refrained  from  them. 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  is  popular  with  his  friends  and  neigh 
bors  ;  the  habitual  equity  of  his  mind  points  him  out 
as  a  peacemaker  and  composer  of  difficulties ;  his 
integrity  is  proverbial  ;  and  his  legal  abilities  are 
regarded  as  of  the  highest  order.  The  soubriquet  of 
6  Honest  old  Abe/  has  been  won  by  years  of  upright 
conduct,  and  is  the  popular  homage  to  his  probity. 
He  carries  the  marks  of  honesty  in  his  face  and  entire 
deportment. 

"I  am  the  more  convinced  by  this  personal  inter 
course  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  the  action  of  our  Con 
vention  was  altogether  judicious  and  proper." 

The  Tribune  gives  the  subjoined  incident  : 

"  Probably  no  attribute  of  our  candidate  will,  after 
all,  endear  him  -so  much  to  the  popular  heart  as  the 
cooviction  that  he  is  emphatically  i  one  of  the  people/ 
His  manhood  has  not  been  compressed  into  the  artificial 
track  of  society  ;  but  his  great  heart  and  vigorous  in 
tellect  have  been  allowed  a  generous  development  amid 
his  solitary  struggles  in  the  forest  and  the  prairie. 
With  vision  unobscured  by  the  mists  of  sophistry,  he 
distinguishes  at  the  first  glance  between  what  is  true 
and  what  is  false,  and  with  will  and  courage  fortified 
by  his  life  of  hardship,  he  is  not  the  man  to  shirk  any 
responsibility,  or  to  shrink  from  any  opposition.  More- 
ovc.r,  he  is  peculiarly  one  to  win  our  confidence  arid 
affection.  To  know  '  honest  Abe'  is  to  love  him  ;  and 
his  neighbors  in  the  West,  although  voting  for  him  to 
a  man,  will  mourn  the  victory  which  is  to  deprive  them 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  149 

of  his  presence.  The  following  incident  will  exhibit 
Lincoln  in  one  of  those  unobtrusive  acts  of  goodness 
which  adorn  his  life.  The  circumstance  was  related  by 
a  teacher  from  the  Five-Points'  House  of  Industry  in 
this  city  : . i  Our  Sunday-school  in  the  Five-Points  was 
assembled,  one  Sabbath  morning,  a  few  months  since, 
when  I  noticed  a  tall  and  remarkable  looking  man  enter 
the  room  and  take  a  seat  among  us.  He  listened  with 
fixed  attention  to  our  exercises,  and  his  countenance 
manifested  such  genuine  interest,  that  I  approached 
him  and  suggested  that  he  might  be  willing  to  say 
something  to  the  children.  He  accepted  the  invitation 
with  evident  pleasure,  and  coming  forward,  began  a 
simple  address,  which  at  once  fascinated  every  little 
hearer,  and  Hushed  the  room  into  silence.  His  lan 
guage  was  strikingly  beautiful,  and  his  tones  musical 
with  intensest  feeling.  The  little  faces  around  would 
droop  into  sad  conviction,  as  he  uttered  sentences  of 
warning,  and  would  brighten  into  sunshine  as  he  spoke 
cheerful  words  of  promise.  Once  or  twice  he  attempted 
to  close  his  remarks,  but  the  imperative  shout  of ."  Gro 
on!"  "  Oh,  do  go  on  \"  would  compel  him  to  resume. 
As  I  looked  upon  the  gaunt  and  sinewy  frame  of  the 
stranger,  and  marked  his  powerful  head  and  deter 
mined  features,  now  touched  into  softness  by  the  im 
pressions  of  the  moment,  I  felt  an  irrepressible  curiosity 
to  learn  something  more  about  him,  and  when  he  was 
quietly  leaving  the  room,  I  begged  to  know  his  name. 
He  courteously  replied,  "  It  is  Abraham  Lincoln,  from 
Illinois !" ' " 

That  the  Convention  at  Chicago  acted  wisely  and 
sagaciously,  no  man  can  for  a  moment  doubt  who  looks 
over  the  field  and  sees  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people 
over  the  nominations.  Tliat  Lincoln  and  Hamlin  can 
be,  and  will  be,  elected  to  the  places  to  lohich  they  have 
been  nominated  we  have  no  manner  of  doubt,  and  we 


150  ABRAHAM      LINCOLN. 

cannot  do  better  than  to  finish  our  sketch  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln  by  quoting  the  following  admirable  song  of  one  of 
America's  most  gifted  sons,  William  Henry  Burleigh, 
of  New- York : 

Up,  again  for  the  conflict!  our  banner  fling  out, 

And  rally  around  it  with  song  and  with  shout ! 

Stout  of  heart,  firm  of  hand,  should  the  gallant  boys  be, 

Who  bear  to  the  battle  the  Flag  of  the  Free  1 

Like  our  fathers,  when  Liberty  called  to  the  strife, 

They  should  pledge  to  her  cause  fortune,  honor,  and  life  1 

And  follow  wherever  she  beckons  them  on, 

Till  Freedom  exults  in  a  victory  won ! 

Then  fling  out  the  banner,  the  old  starry  banner, 

The  battle-torn  banner  that  beckons  us  on  ! 

They  come  from  the  hillside,  they  come  from  the  glen — 
From  the  streets  thronged  with  traffic,  and  surging  with  men 
From  loom  and  from  ledger,  from  workshop  and  farm, 
The  fearless  of  heart,  and  the  mighty  of  arm. 
As  the  mountain-born  torrents  exultingly  leap, 
When  their  ice-fetters  melt,  to  the  breast  of  the  deep ; 
As  the  winds  of  the  prairie,  the  waves  of  the  sea, 
They  are  coming — are  coming— the  Sons  of  the  Free ! 
Then  fling  out  the  banner,  the  old  starry  banner, 
The  war-tattered  banner,  the  flag  of  the  Free  1 

Our  Leader  is  one  who,  with  conquerless  will, 

Has  climbed  from  the  base  to  the  brow  of  the  hill ; 

Undaunted  in  peril,  unwavering  in  strife, 

He  has  fought  a  good  fight  in  the  Battle  of  Life 

And  we  trust  him  as  one  who,  come  voe  or  come  weal, 

Is  as  firm  as  the  rock,  and  as  true  aa  the  steel, 

Bight  loyal  and  trave,  with  no  stain  on  hia  crest, 

Then,  hurrah,  boys,  for  honest  "Old  Abe  of  the  West !" 
And  fling  out  your  banner,  the  old  starry  banner, 
The  signal  of  triumph  for  "  Abe  of  the  West !" 

The  West,  whose  broad  acres,  from  lake-shore  to  sea, 

Now  wait  for  the  harvest  and  homes  of  the  free  1 

Shall  the  dark  tide  of  Slavery  roll  o'er  the  sod, 

That  Freedom  makes  bloom  like  the  garden  of  God  ? 

The  bread  of  our  children  be  torn  from  their  mouth, 

To  feed  the  fierce  dragon  that  preys  on  the  South  ? 

No,  never !  the  trust  which  our  Washington  laid 

On  UB,  for  the  Future,  ehall  ne'er  be  betrayed  ! 

Then  fling  out  the  banner,  the  old  btarry  banner, 
And  on  to  the  conflict  with  hearts  undismayed  I 


SPEECHES  OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 


PAKT    FIFTH. 


SPEECH    OF    ME.   LINCOLN, 

AT  SPRINGFIELD,  June  17,  1858. 

[The  following  speech  was  delivered  at  Springfield, 
111.,  at  the  close  of  the  Eepublican  State  Convention, 
held  at  that  time  and  place,  and  by  which  Convention 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  named  as  their  candidate  for 
United  States  Senator.  Mr.  Douglas  was  not  pres 
ent.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  CONVENTION: 
If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we  are 
tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do,  and  how  to  do  it. 
We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was  initi 
ated  with  the  avowed  object,  and  confident  promise,  of  putting 
an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  that 
policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  con 
stantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease,  until  a 
crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  "  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this  government  can 
not  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do  not  expect  the  house 
to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents 
of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it 
where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction  ;  or  its  advocates  will  push  it 
forward,  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old 
as  well  as  new — North  as  well  as  South. 

Have  we  no  tendency  to  the  latter  condition? 

Let  any  one  who   doubts,  carefully  contemplate  that  now 

7* 


154  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

almost  complete  legal  combination — piece  of  machinery,  so  to 
speak — compounded  of  the  Nebraska  doctrine,  and  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.  Let  him  consider  not  only  what  work  the 
machinery  is  adapted  to  do,  and  how  well  adapted ;  but  also, 
let  him  study  the  history  of  its  construction,  arid  trace,  if  he 
can,  or  rather  fail,  if  he  can,  to  trace,  the  evidences  of  design, 
and  concert  of  action,  among  its  chief  architects,  from  the  be 
ginning. 

The  new  year  of  1854  found  slavery  excluded  from  more 
than  half  the  States  by  State  constitutions,  and  from  most  of 
the  national  territory  by  Congressional  prohibition.  Four 
days  later,  commenced  the  struggle  which  ended  in  repealing 
that  Congressional  prohibition.  This  opened  all  the  national 
territory  to  slavery,  and  was  the  first  point  gained. 

But,  so  far,  Congress  only  had  acted  ;  and  an  endorsement 
by  the  people,  real  or  apparent,  was  indispensable,  to  save  the 
point  already  gained,  and  give  chance  for  more. 

This  necessity  had  not  been  overlooked  ;  but  had  been  pro 
vided  for,  as  well  as  might  be,  in  the  notable  argument  of 
"squatter  sovereignty,"  otherwise  called  "sacred  right  of  self- 
government  "  which  latter  phrase,  though  expressive  of  the 
only  rightful  basis  of  any  government,  was  so  perverted  in 
this  attempted  use  of  it  as  to  amount  to  just  this  :  That  if 
any  one  man  choose  to  enslave  another,  no  third  man  shall  be 
allowed  to  object.  That  argument  was  incorporated  into  the 
Nebraska  bill  itself,  in  the  language  which  follows :  "  It 
being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  there 
from  ;  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  Then 
opened  the  roar  of  loose  declamation  in  favor  of  "  squatter 
sovereignty,"  and  "  sacred  rights  of  self-government."  "  But," 
said  opposition  members,  "  let  us  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  ex 
pressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the  territory  may  exclude 
shivery."  "Not  we,"  said  the  friends  of  the  measure;  and 
down  they  voted  the  amendment. 

While  the  Nebrask  a  bill  was  passing  through  Congress,  a 
law  case  involving  the  question  of  a  negro's  freedom,  by  reason 
of  his  owner  having  voluntarily  taken  him  first  into  a  free 
State  and  then  into  a  territory  covered  by  the  Congressional 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  155 

prohibition,  and  held  him  as  a  slave  for  a  long  time  in  each, 
was  passing  through  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  for  the  District 
of  Missouri ;  and  both  Nebraska  bill  and  law  suit  wore 
brought  to  a  decision  in  the  same  month  of  May,  1854.  The 
negro's  name  was  "  Dred  Scott,"  which  name  now  designates 
the  decision  finally  made  in  the  case.  Before  the  then  next 
Presidential  election,  the  law  case  came  to,  and  was  argued 
in,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ;  but  the  decision 
of  it  was  deferred  until  after  the  election.  Still,  before  the 
election,  Senator  Trumbull,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  re 
quested  the  leading  advocate  of  the  Nebraska  bill  to  state  his 
opinion  whether  the  people  of  a  territory  can  constitutionally 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits ;  and  the  latter  answers  : 
"  That  is  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court." 

The  election  came.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected,  and  the 
endorsement,  such  as  it  was,  secured.  That  was  the  second 
point  gained.  The  endorsement,  however,  fell  short  of  a  clear 
popular  majority  by  nearly  four  hundred  thousand  votes,  and 
so,  perhaps,  was  not  overwhelmingly  reliable  and  satisfactory. 
The  outgoing  President,  in  his  last  annual  message,  as  impres 
sively  as  possible  echoed  back  upon  the  people  the  weight  and 
authority  of  the  endorsement.  The  Supreme  Court  met  again  ; 
did  not  announce  their  decision,  but  ordered  a  re-argument. 
The  Presidential  inauguration  came,  and  still  no  decision  of 
the  court ;  but  the  incoming  President,  in  his  inaugural  ad 
dress,  fervently  exhorted  the  people  to  abide  by  the  forthcom 
ing  decision,  whatever  it  might  be.  Then,  in  a  few  days, 
carne  the  decision. 

The  reputed  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill  finds  an  early  oc 
casion  to  make  a  speech  at  this  capital  endorsing  of  the  Drcd 
Scott  decision,  and  vehemently  denouncing  all  opposition  to 
it.  The  new  President,  too,  seizes  the  early  occasion  of  the 
Silliman  letter  to  endorse  and  strongly  construe  that  decision, 
and  to  express  his  astonishment  that  any  different  view  had 
ever  been  entertained  ! 

At  length  a  squabble  springs  up  between  the  President  and 
the  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  on  the  mere  question  of  fact, 
whether  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was,  or  was  not,  in 
any  just  sense,  made  by  the  people  of  Kansas  ;  and,  in 
that  quarrel,  the  latter  declares  that  all  he  wants  is  a 
fair  vote  of  the  people,  and  that  he  cares  not  whether 


156  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up.  I  do  not  under 
stand  bis  declaration  that  be  cares  not  whether  slavery  be 
Toted  down  or  voted  up.  to  be  intended  by  him  other  than  as 
an  apt  definition  of  the  policy  he  would  impress  upon  the  pub 
lic  mind — the  principle  for  which  he  declares  he  has  suffered 
so  much,  and  is  ready  to  suffer  to  the  end.  And  well  may  he 
cling  to  that  principle.  If  he  has  any  parental  feeling,  well 
may  he  cling  to  it.  That  principle  is  the  only  shred  left  of 
his  original  Nebraska  doctrine.  Under  the  Dred  Scott  de*cis- 
ion,  "  squatter  sovereignty"  squatted  out  of  existence,  tum 
bled  down  like  temporary  scaffolding — like  the  mould  at  the 
foundry  served  through  one  blast  and  fell  back  into  loose  sand 
— helped  to  carry  an  election,  and  then  was  kicked  to  the 
winds.  His  late  joint  struggle  with  the  Kepublicans,  against 
the  Lecompton  Constitution,  involves  nothing  of  the  original 
Nebraska  doctrine.  That  struggle  was  made  on  a  point — 
the  right  of  a  people  to  make  their  own  constitution — upon 
which  he  and  the  Republicans  have  never  differed. 

The  several  points  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  connection 
with  Senator  Douglas's  "  care  not"  policy,  constitute  the  piece 
of  machinery,  in  its  present  state  of  advancement.  This  was 
the  third  point  gained.  The  working  points  of  that  machine 
ry  are  : 

First,  That  no  negro  slave,  imported  as  such  from  Africa, 
and  no  descendant  of  such  slave,  can  ever  be  a  citizen  of  any 
State,  in  the  sense  of  that  term  as  used  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  This  point  is  made  in  order  to  deprive 
the  negro,  in  every  possible  event,  of  the  benefit  of  that  pro 
vision  of  the  United  States  Constitution,  which  declares  that 
"The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

Secondly,  That  "subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,"  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial  legislature  can  ex 
clude  slavery  from  any  United  States  territory.  This  point  is 
made  in  order  that  individual  men  may  hll  up  the  territories 
with  slaves,  without  danger  of  losing  them  as  property,  and 
thus  to  enhance  the  chances  of  permanency  to  the  institution 
through  all  the  future. 

Thirdly,  That  whether  the  holding  a  negro  in  actual  slave 
ry  in  a  ii-ee  State,  makes  him  free,  as  against  the  holder,  the 
United  States  courts  will  not  decide,  but  will  leave  to  be  de- 


• 
ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  157 

* 

cided  by  the  courts  of  any  slave  State  the  negro  may  be  forced 
into  by  the  master.  This  point  is  made,  not  to  be  pressed  im 
mediately  ;  but,  if  acquiesced  in  for  a  while,  and  apparently 
endorsed  by  the  people  at  an  election,  then  to  sustain  the  logi 
cal  conclusion  that  what  Dred  Scott's  master  might  lawfully 
do  with. Dred  Scott,  in  the  free  State  of  Illinois,  every  other 
master  may  lawfully  do  with  any  other  one,  or  one  thousand 
slaves,  in  Illinois,  or  in  any  other  free  State. 

Auxiliary  to  all  this,  and  working  hand  in  hand  with  it, 
the  Nebraska  doctrine,  or  what  is  left  of  it,  is  to  educate  and 
mould  public  opinion,  at  least  Northern  public  opinion,  not 
to  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up.  This 
shows  exactly  «vvhere  we  now  are  ;  and  partially,  also,  whith 
er  we  are  tending.  4 

It  will  throw  additional  light  on  the  latter,  to  go  back,  and 
run  the  mind  over  the  string  of  historical  facts  already  stated. 
Several  things  will  now  appear  less  dark  and  mysterious  than 
they  did  when  they  were  transpiring.  The  people  were  to  be 
left  "perfectly  free,"  "subject  only  to  the  Constitution." 
What  the  Constitution  had  to  do  with  it  outsiders  could  not 
then  see.  Plainly  enough  now,  it  was  an  exactly  fitted  niche, 
for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  to  afterward  come  in,  and  declare 
the  perfect  freedom  of  the  people  to  be  just  no  freedom  at  all. 
Why  was  the  amendment,  expressly  declaring  the  right  of  the 
people,  voted  down  ?  Plainly  enough  now  :  the  adoption  of 
it  would  have  spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
Why  was  the  court  decision  held  up  ?  Why  even  a  Senator's 
individual  opinion  withheld,  till  after  the  Presidential  elec 
tion  I  Plainly  enough  now  :  the  speaking  out  then  would 
have  damaged  the  perfectly  free  argument  upon  which  the 
election  was  to  be  carried.  Why  the  outgoing  President's  fe 
licitation  on  the  endorsement  ?  Why  the  delay  of  a^  re-argu 
ment  ?  Why  the  incoming  President's  advance  exhortation 
in  favor  of  the  decision?  These  things  look  like  the  cautious 
patting  and  petting  of  a  spirited  horse  preparatory  to  mount 
ing  him,  "when  it  is  dreaded  that  he  may  give  the  rider  a  fall. 
And  why  the  hasty  after-endorsement  of  the  decision  by  the 
President  and  others  ? 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  all  these  exact  adaptations 
are  the  result  of  pre-concert.  But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed 
timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we  know  have 'been  gotten 


158  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OP 

out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by  different  workmen — 
Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger,  and  James,  for  instance — and  when 
we  see  these  timbers  joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly 
make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the  tenons  and  mor 
tices  exactly  fitting,  all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of  the  dif 
ferent  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their  respective  places,  and 
not  a  piece  too  many  or  too  few — not  omitting  even  scaffold 
ing — or,  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the  place  in  the 
frame  exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece  in — 
in  such  a  case,  we  find  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Ste 
phen  and  Franklin,  and  Roger  and  James,  all  understood  one 
another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a  common 
plan  or  draft  drawn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck, 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that,  by  the  Nebraska  bill,  the 
people  of  a  State  as  v+li  as  territory,  were  to  be  left  "  per 
fectly  free,"  "subject  only  to  the  Constitution."  Why  men 
tion  a  State  ?  They  were  legislating  for  territories,  and  not 
for  or  about  States.  Certainly  the  people  of  a  State  are  and 
ought  to  be  subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ; 
bnt  why  is  mention  of  this  lugged  into  this  merely  territorial 
law  ?  Why  are  the  people  of  a  territory  and  the  people  of  a 
State  therein  lumped  together,  and  their  relation  to  the  Con 
stitution  therein  treated  as  being  precisely  the  same  ?  While 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  by  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  and  the  separate  opinions  of  all  the  concurring 
Judges,  expressly  declare  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  neither  permits  Congress  nor  a  territorial  legislature  to 
exclude  slavery  from  any  United  States  territory,  they  all  omit 
to  declare  whether  or  not  the  same  Constitution  permits  a 
State,  or  the  people  of  a  State,  to  exclude  it.  Possibly,  this  is 
a  mere  omission ;  but  who  can  be  quite  sure,  if  McLean  or 
Curtis  had  sought  to  get  into  the  opinion  a  declaration  of  un 
limited  power  in  the  people  of  a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from 
their  limits,  just  as  Chase  and  Mace  sought  to  get  such  dec 
laration,  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  a  territory,  into  the  Ne 
braska  bill — I  ask,  who  can  be  quite  sure  that  it  would  not 
have  been  voted  down  in  the  one  case  as  it  had  been  in  the 
other  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  the  point  of  declaring  the 
power  of  a  State  over  slavery,  is  made  by  Judge  Nelson,  lie 
approaches  it  more  than  once,  using  the  precise  idea,  and  al 
most  the  language,  too,  of  the  Nebraska  act.  On  one  occa- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  159 


sion,  his  exact  language  is,  "  except  in  cases  where  the  power 
is  restrained  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  law 
of  the  State  is  supreme  over  the  subject  of  slavery  within  its 
jurisdiction."  In  what  cases  the  power  of  the  State  is  so  re 
strained  by  the  United  States  Constitution,  is  left  an  open 
question,  precisely  as  the  same  question,  as  to  the  restraint  on 
the  power  of  the  territories,  was  left  open  in  the  Nebraska 
act.  Put  this  and  that  together,  and  we  have  another  nice 
little  niche,  which  we  may,  ere  long,  see  filled  with  another 
Supreme  Court  decision,  declaring  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  does  not  permit* a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from 
its  limits.  And  this  may  especially  be  expected  if  the  doc 
trine  of  "  care  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted 
up,"  shall  gain  upon  the  public  mind  sufficiently  to  give 
promise  that  such  a  decision  can  be  maintained  when  made. 

Such  a  decision  is  all  that  slavery  no-v  lacks  of  being  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States.  Welcome,  or  unwelcome,  such  de 
cision  is  probably  coming,  and  will  soon  be  upon  us,  unless 
the  power  of  the  present  political  dynasty  shall  be  met  and 
overthrown.  We  shall  lie  down  pleasantly  dreaming  that  the 
people  of  Missouri  are  on  the  verge  of  making  their  State  free, 
and  we  shall  awake  to  the  reality  instead,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  has  made  Illinois  a  slave  State.  To  meet  and  over 
throw  the  power  of  that  dynasty,  is  the  work  now  before  all 
those  who  would  prevent  that  consummation.  That  is  what 
we  have  to  do.  How  can  we  best  do  it  *? 

There  are  those  who  denounce  us  openly  to  their  own 
friends,  and  yet  whisper  us  softly,  that  Senator  Douglas  is  the 
nptest  instrument  there  is  with  which  to  effect  that  object. 
They  wish  us  to  infer  all,  from  the  fact  that  he  now  has  a  lit 
tle  quarrel  with  the  present  head  of  the  dynasty  ;  and  that  he 
has  regularly  voted  with  us  on  a  single  point,  upon  which  he 
and  we  have  never  differed.  They  remind  us  that  he  is  a  great 
ma%,  and  that  the  largest  of  us  are  very  small  ones.  Let  this 
be  granted.  But  "a  living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion." 
Judge  Douglas,  if  not  a  dead  lion,  for  this  work,  is  at  least  a 
caged  and  toothless  one.  How  can  he  oppose  the  advances  of 
slavery  t  He  don't  care  anything  about  it.  His  avowed 
mission  is  impressing  the  "  public  heart"  to  care  nothing  about 
it.  A  leading  Douglas  democratic  newspaper  thinks  Doug 
las's  superior  talent  will  be  needed  to  resist  the  revival  of  the 


160  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OP 

African  slave  trade.  Does  Douglas  believe  an  effort  to  re 
vive  that  trade  is  approaching  ?  He  has  not  said  so.  Does 
he  really  think  so?  J3ut  if  it  is,  how  can  he  resist  it?  For 
years  he  has  labored  to  prove  it  a  sacred  right  of  white  men 
to  take  negro  slaves  into  the  %new  territories.  Can  he  possi 
bly  show  that  it  is  less  a  sacred  right  to  buy  them  where  they 
can  be  bought  cheapest  ?  And  unquestionably  they  can  be 
bought  cheaper  in  Africa  than  in  Virginia.  He  has  done  all 
in  his  power  to  reduce  the  whole  question  of  slavery  to  one  of 
a  mere  right  of  property  ;  and  as  such,  how  can  he  oppose 
the  foreign  slave  trade — how  can  he  refuse  that  trade  in  that 
"  property"  shall  be  "  perfectly  free" — unless  he  does  it  as  a 
protection  to  the  home  production  1  And  as  the  home  pro 
ducers  will  probably  not  ask  the  protection,  he  will  be  wholly 
without  a  ground  of  opposition. 

Senator  Douglas  holds,  we  know,  that  a  man  may  right 
fully  be  wiser  to-day  than  he  was  yesterday — that  he  may 
rightfully  change  when  he  finds  himself  wrong.  But  can  we, 
for  that  reason,  run  ahead,  and  infer  that  he  will  make  any 
particular  change,  of  which  he,  himself,  has  given  no  intima 
tion  ?  Can  we  safely  base  our  action  upon  any  such  vague 
inference?  Now,  as  ever,  I  wish  not  to  misrepresent  Judge 
Douglas's  position,  question  his  motives,  or  do  aught  that  can 
be  personally  offensive  to  him.  Whenever,  if  ever,  he  and  we 
can  come  together  on  principle,  so  that  our  cause  may  have 
assistance  from  his  great  ability,  I  hope  to  Tiave  interposed  no 
adventitious  obstacle.  But  clearly,  he  is  not  now  with  us — 
he  does  not  pretend  to  be — he  does  not  promise  ever  to  be. 

Our  cause,  then,  must  be  intrusted  to,  and  conducted  by,  its 
own  undoubted  friends — those  whose  hands  are  free,  whose 
hearts  are  in  the  work — who  do  care  for  the  result.  Two 
years  ago  the  Republicans  of  the  nation  mustered  over  thirteen 
hundred  thousand  strong.  We  did  this  under  the  single  im 
pulse  of  resistance  to  a  common  danger,  with  every  external 
circumstance  against  us.  Of  strange,  discordant,  and  even 
hostile  elements,  we  gathered  from  the  four  winds,  and  formed 
and  fought  the  battle  through,  under  the  constant  hot,  fire  of  a 
disciplined,  proud,  and  pampered  enemy.  Did  we  brave  all 
then,  to  falter  now  ? — now,  when  that  same  enemy  is  waver 
ing,  dissevered,  and  belligerent  ?  The  result  is  not  doubtful. 
We  shall  not  fail — if  we  stand  firm,  we  shall  not  fail.  Wise 


ABKAHAM    LINCOLN.  161 

counsels  may  accelerate,  or  mistakes  delay  it,  but  sooner  or 
later,  the  victory  is  sure  to  come. 


ME.  LINCOLN'S  SPEECH  IN  KEPLY  TO  MB. 
DOUGLAS, 

AT  CHICAGO,  July  10,  1858. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  introduced  lay  C.  L.  Wilson,  Esq.,  and  as 
he  made  his  appearance  he  was  greeted  with  a  perfect  storm 
of  applause.  For  some  moments  the  enthusiasm  continued 
unabated.  At  last,  when  by  a  wave  of  his  hand  partial 
silence  was  restored,  Mr.  Lincoln  said : 

MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  On  yesterday  evening,  upon  the  oc 
casion  of  the  reception  given  to  Senator  Douglas,  1  was  fur 
nished  with  a  seat  very  convenient  for  hearing  him,  and  was 
otherwise  very  courteously  treated  by  him  and  his  friends,  and 
for  which  I  thank  him  and  them.  During  the  course  of  his 
remarks  my  name  was  mentioned  in  such  a  way  as,  I  suppose, 
renders  it  at  least  not  improper  that  I  should  make  some  sort 
of  reply  to  him.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  him  in  the  pre 
cise  order  in  which  he  addressed  the  assembled  multitude  upon 
that  occasion,  though  I  shall,  perhaps,  do  so  in  the  main. 

There  was  one  question  to  which  he  asked  the  attention  of 
the  crowd,  which  I  deem  of  somewhat  less  importance — at 
least  of  propriety  for  me  to  dwell  upon — than  the  others, 
which  he  brought  in  near  the  close  of  his  speech,  and  which 
I  think  it  would  not  be  entirely  proper  for  me  to  omit  attend 
ing  to  ;  and  yet,  if  I  were  not  to  give  some  attention  to  it  now, 
I  should  probably  forget  it  altogether.  While  I  am  upon  this 
subject,  allow  me  to  say,  that  I  do  not  intend  to  indulge  in  that 
inconvenient  mode  sometimes  adopted  in  public  speaking,  of 
reading  from  documents  ;  but  I  shall  depart  from  that  rule  so 
far  as  to  read  a  little  scrap  from  his  speech,  which  notices  this 
first  topic  of  which  I  shall  speak — that  is,  provided  I  can  find 
it  in  the  paper. 


162  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

"  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against 
the  combination  that  has  been  made  against  me ! — the  Repub 
lican  leaders  having  formed  an  alliance,  an  unholy  and  unnat 
ural  alliance,  with  a  portion  of  unscrupulous  federal  office 
holders.  I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army  wherever  I  meet 
them.  I  know  they  deny  the  alliance,  but  yet  these  men  who 
are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic  party  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  a  Republican  Senator  in  'my  place,  are  just  as  much 
the  agents  and  tools  of  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Hence 
I  shall  deal  with  this  allied  army  just  as  the  Russians  dealt 
with  the  allies  at  Sebastopol — that  is,  the  Russians  did  not 
stop  to  inquire,  when  they  fired  a  broadside,  whether  it  hit  an 
Englishman,  a  Frenchman^  or  a  T^urk.  Nor  will  I  stop  to 
inquire,  nor  shall  I  hesitate,  whether  my  blows  shall  hit  these 
Republican  leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  federal 
offices  and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  them." 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  very  alarming  !  Just  to 
think  of  it !  right  at  the  outset  of  the  canvass,  I,  a  poor,  kind, 
amiable,  intelligent  gentleman,  I  am  to  be  slain  in  this  way  ! 
Why,  my  friend,  the  Judge,  is  not  only,  as  it  turns  out,  riot  a 
dead  lion,  nor  even  a  living  one — he  is  the  rugged  Russian 
bear ! 

But  if  they  will  have  it — for  he  says  that  we  deny  it — that 
there  is  any  such  alliance,  as  he  says  there  is — and  I  don't 
propose  hanging  very  much  upon  this  question1  of  veracity — 
but  if  he  will  have  it  that  there  is  such  an  alliance — that  the 
administration  men  and  we  are  allied,  and  we  stand  in  the 
attitude  of  English,  French,  and  Turk,  he  occupying  the  posi 
tion  of  the  Russian,  in  that  case,  I  beg  that  he  will  indulge 
us  while  we  barely  suggest  to  him  that  these  allies  took  Sebas 
topol. 

Gentlemen,  only  a  few  more  words  as  to  this  alliance.  For 
my  part,  I  have  to  say,  that  whether  there  be  such  an  alliance, 
depends,  so  far  as  I  know,  upon  what  may  be  a  right  defini 
tion  of  the  term  alliance.  If  for  the  Republican  party  to  see 
the  other  great  party  to  which  they  are  opposed  divided  among 
themselves,  and  not  try  to  stop  the  division,  and  rather  be 
glad  of  it — if  that  is  an  alliance,  I  confess  I  am  in  ;  but  if  it  is 
meant  to  be  said  that  the  Republicans  have  formed  an  alliance 
going  beyond  that,  by  which  there  is  contribution  of  money 
or  sacrifice  of  principle,  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  so  far  as 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  163 


the  Republican  party  is  concerned,  if  there  be  any  such  thing, 
I  protest  that  I  neither  know  anything  of  it,  nor  do  I  believe 
it.  I  will,  however,  say — as  I  think  this  branch  of  the  argu 
ment  is  lugged  in— I  would  before  I  leave  it,  state,  for  the 
benefit  of  those  concerned,  that  one  of  those  same  Buchanan 
men  did  once  tell  me  of  an  argument  that  he  made  for  his  op 
position  to  Judge  Douglas.  He  said  that  a  friend  of  our 
Senator  Douglas  had  been  talking  to  him,  and  had,  among 
other  things,  said  to  him:  "  Why,  you  don't  want  to  beat 
Douglas  f  "  Yes,"  said  he,  "  I  do  want  to  beat  him,  and  I 
will  tell  you  why.  I  believe  his  original  Nebraska  bill  was 
right  in  the  abstract,  but  it  was  wrong  in  the  time  that  it  wag 
brought  forward.  It  was  wrong  in  the  application  to  a  terri 
tory  in  regard  to  which  the  question  had  been  settled ;  it  was 
brought  forward  at  a  time  when  nobody  asked  him ;  it  was 
tendered  to  the  South  when  the  South  had  not  asked  for  it,  but 
when  they  could  not  well  refuse  it ;  and  for  this  same  reason 
he  forced  that  question  upon  our  party  ;  it  has  sunk  the  best 
men  all  over  the  nation,  everywhere  ;  and  now,  when  our 
President,  struggling  with  the  difficulties  of  this  man's  getting 
up,  has  reached  the  very  hardest  point  to  turn  in  the  case,  he 
deserts  him,  and  I  am  for  putting  him  where  he  will  trouble  us 
no  more." 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  my  argument — that  is  not  my 
argument  at  all.  I  have  only  been  stating  to  you  the  argu 
ment  of  a  Buchanan  man.  You  will  judge  if  there  is  any 
force  in  it. 

Popular  sovereignty !  everlasting  popular  sovereignty  !  Let 
us  for  a  moment  inquire  into  this  vast  matter  of  popular  sov 
ereignty.  What  is  popular  sovereignty  ?  We  recollect  that 
at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  this  struggle,  there  was 
another  name  for  the  same  thing — squatter  sovereignty.  It 
was  not  exactly  popular  sovereignty,  but  squatter  sovereign 
ty.  What  do  those  terms  mean  ?  "W  hat  do  those  terms  mean 
when  used  now  ?  And  vast  credit  is  taken  by  our  friend, 
the  Judge,  in  regard  to  his  support  of  it,  when  he  declares  the 
last  years  of  his  life  have  been,  and  all  the  future  years  of  his 
life  shall  be,  devoted  to  this  matter  of  popular  sovereignty. 
What  is  it  ?  Why,  it  is  the  sovereignty  of  the  people !  What 
was  squatter  sovereignty?  I  suppose,  if  it  had  any  signifi 
cance  at  all,  it  was  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  them- 


164  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

selves,  to  be  sovereign  in  their  own  affairs  while  they  were 
squatted  down  in  a  territory  not  their  own,  while  they  had 
squatted  on  a  territory  that  did  not  belong  to  them,  in  the 
sense  that  a  State  belongs  to  the  people  who  inhabit  it — when 
it  belonged  to  the  nation — such  right  to  govern  themselves  was 
called  "  squatter  sovereignty." 

Now,  I  wish  you  to  mark.  What  has  become  of  that 
squatter  sovereignty  ?  What  has  become  of  it  ?  Can  you 
get  anybody  to  tell  you  now  that  the  people  of  a  territory 
have  any  authority  to  govern  themselves,  in  regard  to  this 
mooted  question  of  slavery,  before  they  form  a  State  constitu 
tion  1  No  such  thing  at  all,  although  there  is  a  general  run 
ning  fire,  and  although  there  has  been  a  hurrah  made  in  every 
speech  on  that  side,  assuming  that  policy  had  given  the  people 
of  a  territory  the  right  to  govern  themselves  upon  this  ques 
tion  ;  yet  the  point  is  dodged.  To-day  it  has  been  decided — 
no  more  than  a  year  ago  it  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  and  is  insisted  upon  to-day,  that  the 
people  of  a  territory  have  no  right  to  exclude  slavery  from  a 
territory  ;  that  if  any  one  man  chooses  to  take  slaves  into  a 
territory,  all  the  rest  of  the  people  have  no  right  to  keep  them 
out.  This  being  so,  arid  this  decision  being  made  one  of  the 
points  that  the  Judge  approved,  and  one  in  the  approval  of 
which  he  says  he  means  to  keep  me  down — put  me  down,  I 
should  not  say,  for  I  have  never  been  up.  He  says  he  is  in 
favor  of  it,  arid  sticks  to  it,  and  expects  to  win  his  battle  on 
that  decision,  which  says  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  squat 
ter  sovereignty  ;  but  that  any  one  may  take  slaves  into  a  ter 
ritory,  and  all  the  other  men  in  a  territory  may  be  opposed  to 
it,  and  yet,  by  reason  of  the  Constitution,  they  cannot  pro 
hibit  it.  When  that  is  so,  how  much  is  left  of  this  vast  matter 
of  squatter  sovereignty,  I  should  like  to  know "? 

When  we  get  back,  we  get  to  the  point  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  a  constitution.  Kansas  was  settled,  for  ex 
ample,  in  1854.  It  was  a  territory  yet,  without  having 
formed  a  constitution,  in  a  very  regular  way,  for  three  years. 
All  this  time  negro  slavery  could  be  taken  in  by  any  few  in 
dividuals,  and  by  that  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which 
the  Judge  approves,  all  the  rest  of  the  people  canot  keep  it 
out ;  but  when  they  come  to  make  a  constitution,  they  may 
say  they  will  not  have  slavery.  But  it  is  there ;  they  are 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  165 

obliged  to  tolerate  it  some  way,  and  all  experience  shows  it 
will  be  so — for  they  will  not  take  the  negro  slaves  and  abso 
lutely  deprive  the  owners  of  them.  All  experience  shows 
this  to  be  so.  All  that  space  of  time  that  runs  from  the  begin 
ning  of  the  settlement  of  the  territory,  until  there  is  sufficiency 
of  people  to  make  a  State  constitution — all  that  portion  of 
time — popular  sovereignty  is  given  up.  The  seal  is  absolutely 
put  down  upon  it  by  the  court  decision,  and  Judge  Douglas 
puts  his  own  upon  the  top  of  that,  yet  he  is  appealing  to  the 
people  to  give  him  vast  credit  for  his  devotion  to  popular  sov 
ereignty. 

Again,  when  we  get  to  the  question  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  form  a  State  constitution  as  they  please,  to  form  it 
with  slavery  or  without  slavery — if  that  is  anything  new,  I 
confess  I  don't  know  it.  Has  there  ever  been  a  time  when 
anybody  said  that  any  other  than  the  people  of  a  territory 
itself  should  form  a  constitution  f  What  is  now  in  it  that 
Judge  Douglas  should  have  fought  several  years  of  his  life, 
and  pledge  himself  to  fight  all  the  remaining  years  of  his  life, 
for  ?  Can  Judge  Douglas  find  anybody  on  earth  that  said 
that  anybody  else  should  form  a  constitution  for  a  people  ? 
fA  voice — "Yes."]  Well,  I  should  like  you  to  name  him  ;  I 
should  like  to  know  who  he  was.  [Same  voice — "  John  Cal- 
houn.-"] 

Mr.  Lincoln — No,  sir,  I  never  heard  of- even  John  Calhoun 
saying  such  a  thing.  He  insisted  on  the  same  principle  as 
Judge  Douglas ;  but  his  mode  of  applying  it,  in  fact,  was 
wrong.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  ask  this  crowd,  when 
ever  a  Republican  said  anything  against  it "?  They  never  said 
anything  against  it,  but  they  have  constantly  spoken  for  it ; 
and  whosoever  will  undertake  to  examine  the  platform,  and 
the  speeches  of  responsible  men  of  the  party,  and  of  irre 
sponsible  men,  too,  if  you  please,  will  be  unable  to  find  one 
word  from  anybody  in  the  Republican  ranks,  opposed  to  that 
popular  sovereign-ty  which  Judge  Douglas  thinks  that  he  has 
invented.  I  suppose  that  Judge  Douglas  will  claim,  in  a 
little  while,  that  he  is  the  inventor  of  the  idea  that  the  peo 
ple  should  govern  themselves  ;  that  nobody  ever  thought  of 
such  a  thing  until  he  brought  it  forward.  We  do  not  remem 
ber,  that  in  that  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  it  is  said 
that  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men 


166  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ;  that  to  secure  these 
rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  There  is  the 
origin  of  popular  sovereignty.  Who  then,  shall  come  in  at 
this  day  and  claim  that  he  invented  it  ? 

The  Lecompton  constitution  connects  itself  with  this  ques 
tion,  for  it  is  in  this  matter  of  the  Lecompton  constitution 
that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas  claims  such  vast  credit.  I 
agree  that,  in  opposing  the  Lecompton  constitution,  so  far  as 
I  can  perceive,  he  was  right.  I  do  not  deny  that  at  all ;  and, 
gentlemen,  you  will  readily  see  why  I  could  not  deny  it,  even 
if  I  wanted  to.  But  I  do  not  wish  to;  for  all  the  Republi 
cans  in  the  nation  opposed  it,  and  they  would  have  opposed  it 
just  as  much  without  Judge  Douglas'  aid  as  with  it.  They 
had  all  taken  ground  against  it  long  before  he  did.  Why,  the 
reason  that  he  urges  against  that  constitution,  I  urged  against 
him  a  year  before.  I  have  the  printed  speech  in  my  hand. 
The  argument  that  he  makes,  why  that  constitution  should 
not  be  adopted,  that  the  people  were  not  fairly  represented 
nor  allowed  to  vote,  I  pointed  out  in  a  speech  a  year  ago, 
which  I  hold  in  my  hand  now,  that  no  fair  chance  was  to  be 
given  to  the  people.  ["  Read  it,"  "Read  it."]  I  shall  not 
waste  your  time  by  trying  to  read  it.  ["  Read  it,"  "  Read  it."] 
Gentlemen,  reading  from  speeches  is  a  very  tedious  business, 
particularly  far  an  old  man  that  has  to  put  on  spectacles,  and 
more  so  if  the  man  be  so  tall  that  he  has  to  bend  over  to  the 
light. 

A  little  more,  now,  as  to  this  matter  of  popular  sovereign 
ty,  and  the  Lecompton  constitution.  The  Lecompton  con-, 
stitution,  as  the  Judge  tells  us,  was  defeated.  The  defeat  of 
it  was  a  good  thing  or  it  was  not.  He  thinks  the  defeat  of  it 
was  a  good  thing,  and  so  do  I,  and  we  agree  in  that.  Who 
defeated  it0? 

A  voice — "  Judge  Douglas." 

Mr.  Lincoln — Yes,  he  furnished  himself,  and  if  you  suppose 
he  controlled  the  other  Democrats  that  went  with  him,  he 
furnished  three  votes,  while  the  Republicans  furnished  twenty. 

That  is  what  he  did  to  defeat  it.  In  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  he  and  his  friends  furnished  some  twenty  votes,  and 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  167 


the  Republicans  furnished  ninety  odd.  Now  who  was  it  that 
did  the  work? 

A  voice — "  Douglas." 

Mr.  Lincoln — Why,  yes,  Douglas  did  it !  To  be  sure  he 
did. 

Let  us,  however,  put  that  proposition  another  way.  The 
Republicans  could  not  have  done  it  without  Judge  Douglas. 
Could  he  have  done  it  without  them  ?  Which  could  have 
come  the  nearest  to  doing  it  without  the  other  ? 

A  voice— "Who  killed  the  bill?" 

Another  voice — "  Douglas." 

Mr.  Lincoln— Ground  was  taken  against  it  by  the  Repub 
licans  long  before  Douglas  did  it.  The  proportion  of  opposi 
tion  to  that  measure  is  about  five  to  one. 

A  voice — "  Why  don't  they  come  out  on  it  ?" 

Mr.  Lincoln — You  don't  know  what  you  are  talking  about, 
y  friend.  I  am  quite  willing  to  answer  any  gentleman  in 
he  crowd  who  asks  an  intelligent  question. 

Now  who,  in  all  this  -country,  has  ever  found  any  of  our 
friends  of  Judge  Douglas'  way  of  thinking,  and  who  have 
acted  upon  this  main  question,  that  has  ever  thought  of  utter 
ing  a  word  in  behalf  of  Judge  Trumbull  *? 

A  voice — "  We  have." 

Mr.  Lincoln — I  defy  you  to  show  a  printed  resolution 
passed  in  a  Democratic  meeting — I  take  it  upon  myself  to 
defy  any  man  to  show  a  printed  resolution  of  a  Democratic 
meeting,  large  or  small,  in  favor  of  Judge  Trumbull,  or  any  of 
the  five  to  one  Republicans  who  beat  that  bill.  Everything 
must  be  for  the  Democrats !  They  did  everything,  and  the 
five  to  the  one  that  really  did  the  thing,  they  snub  over,  and 
they  do  not  seem  to  remember  that  they  have  an  existence 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Gentlemen,  I  fear  that  I  shall  become  tedious.  I  leave  this 
branch  of  the  subject  to  take  hold  of  another.  I  take  up 
that  part  of  Judge  Douglas'  speech  in  which  he  respectfully 
attended  to  me. 

Judge  Douglas  made  two  points  upon  my  recent  speech  at 
Springfield.  He  says  they  are  to  be  the  issues  of  this  cam 
paign.  The  first  one  of  these  points  he  bases  upon  the  lan 
guage  in  a  speech  which  I  delivered  at  Springfield,  which  I 
believe  I  can  quote  correctly  from  memory.  I  said  there  that 


168  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES     OF 


"  we  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  insti 
tuted  for  the  avowed  object,  and  with  the  confident  promise, 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  ;  under  the  opera 
tion  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  had  only  not  ceased,  but 
had  constantly  augmented."  "I  believe  it  will  not  cease  until 
a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  l  A  house  divi 
ded  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free."  "I  do 
not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved" — I  am  quoting  from 
my  speech — "I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  ex 
pect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing 
or  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest,  in 
the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its 
advocates  will  push  it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  law 
ful  in  all  the  States,  North  as  well  as  South." 

What  is  the  paragraph  1  In  this  paragraph,  which  I  have 
quoted  in  your  hearing,  and  to  which  I  ask  the  attention  of 
all,  Judge  Douglas  thinks  he  discovers  great  political  heresy. 
I  want  your  attention  particularly  to  what  he  has  inferred 
from  it.  He  says  I  am  in  favor  of  making  all  the  States  of 
this  Union  uniform  in  all  their  internal  regulations  ;  that  in 
all  their  domestic  concerns  I  am  in  favor  of  making  them  en 
tirely  uniform.  He  draws  this  inference  from  the  language  I 
have  quoted  to  you.  He  says  that  I  am  in  favor  of  making 
war  by  the  North  upon  the  South,  for  the  extinction  of  sla 
very  ;  that  I  am  also  in  favor  of  inviting  (as  he  expresses  it) 
the  South  to  a  war  upon  the  North,  for  the  purpose  of  na 
tionalizing  slavery.  Now,  it  is  singular  enough,  if  you  will 
carefully  read  that  passage  over,  that  I  did  not  say  that  I  was 
in  favor  of  anything  in  it.  I  only  said  what  I  expected 
would  take  place.  I  made  a  prediction  only — it  may  have 
been  a  foolish  one,  perhaps.  I  did  not  even  say  that  I  desired 
that  slavery  should  be  put  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I 
do  say  so  now,  however,  so  there  need  be  no  longer  any  diili- 
culty  about  that.  It  may  be  written  down  in  the  great 
Fpeech. 

Gentlemen,  Judge  Douglas  informed  you  that  this  speech 
of  mine  was  probably  carefully  prepared.  I  admit  that  it 
was.  I  am  not  master  of  language  ;  I  have  not  a  tine  educa 
tion  ;  I  am  not  capable  of  entering  into  a  disquisition  updn 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  169 

dialectics,  as  I  believe  you  call  it ;  but  I  do  not  believe  the 
language  I  employed  bears  any  such  construction  as  Judge 
Douglas  puts  upon  it.  "But  I  don't  care  about  a  quibble  in 
regard  to  words  I  know  what  I  meant,  and  I  will  not  leave 
this  crowd  in  doubt,  if  I  can  explain  it  to  them,  what  1  really 
meant  in  the  use  of  that  paragraph. 

I  am  not,  in  the  first  place,  unaware  that  this  government 
has  endured  eighty-two  years,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I 
know  that.  I  am  tolerably  well  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  the  country,  and  I  know  that  it  has  endured  eighty-two 
years,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  believe — and  that  is  what  I 
meant  to  allude  to  there — I  believe  it  has  endured,  because 
during  all  that  time,  until  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska 
bill,  the  public  mind  did  rest  all  the  time  in  the  belief  that 
slavery  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  That  was  what 
gave  us  the  rest  that  we  had  through  that  period  of  eighty- 
two  years ;  at  least,  so  I  believe.  I  have  always  hated  sla 
very,  I  think,  as  much  as  any  abolitionist — I  have  been  an 
Old  Line  Whig — I  have  always  hated  it,  but  I  have  always 
been  quiet,  about  it  until  this  new  era  of  the  introduction  of 
the  Nebraska  bill  began.  I  always  believed  that  everybody 
was  against  it,  and  that  it  was  in  course  o.  ultimate  extinc 
tion.  [Pointing  to  Mr.  Browning,  who  stood  near  by.] 
Browning  thought  so;  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  have  rested 
in  the  belief  that  slavery  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
They  had  reason  so  to  believe. 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  its  attendant  history 
led  the  people  to  believe  so ;  and  that  such  was  the  belief  of 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  itself,  why  did  those  old  men, 
about  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  decree 
that  slavery  bhould  not  go  into  the  new  territory,  where  it 
had  not  already  gone  ?  Why  declare  that  within  twenty  years 
the  African  slave-trade,  by  which  slaves  are  supplied,  might 
be  cut  off  by  Congress  1  Why  were  all  these  acts  ?  I  might 
enumerate  more  of  these  acts — but  enough.  What  were  they 
but  a  clear  indication  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  in 
tended  and  expected  the  ultimate  extinction  of  that  institu 
tion  ?  And  now,  when  I  say,  as  I  said  in  my  speech  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  quoted  from,  when  I  say  that  I  think  the 
opponents  of  slavery  will  resist  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  with  the  belief  that 

8 


170  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


it  is  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  I  only  mean  to  say,  that 
they  will  place  it  where  the  founders  of  this  government  origi 
nally  placed  it. 

I  have  said  a  hundred  times,  and  I  have  now  no  inclina 
tion  to  take  it  back,  that  I  believe  there  is  no  right,  and  ought  to 
be  no  inclination  in  the  people  of  the  free  States  to  enter  into 
the  slave  States,  and  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  at 
all.  I  have  said  that  always  ;  Judge  Douglas  has  heard  me 
say  it — if  not  quite  a  hundred  times,  at  least  as  good  as  a 
hundred  times  ;  and  when  it  is  said  that  I  am  in  favor  of  in 
terfering  with  slavery  where  it  exists,  I  know  it  is  unwar 
ranted  by  anything  I  have  ever  intended,  and,  as  I  believe,  by 
anything  I  have  ever  said.  If,  by  any  means,  I  have  ever 
used  language  which  could  fairly  be  so  construed  (as,  how 
ever,  I  believe  I  never  have),  I  now  correct  it. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  inference  that  Judge  Douglas  draws, 
that  I  am  in  favor  of  setting  the  sections  at  war  with  one 
another.  I  know  that  I  never  meant  any  such  thing,  and  I 
believe  that  no  fair  mind  can  infer  any  such  thing  from  any 
thing  I  have  ever  said. 

Now  in  relation  to  his  inference  that  I  am  in  favor  of  a 
general  consolidation  of  all  the  local  institutions  of  the  various 
States.  I  will  attend  to  that  for  a  little  while,  and  try  to  in 
quire,  if  I  can,  how  on  earth  it  could  be  that  any  man  could 
draw  such  an  inference  from  anything  I  said.  I  have  said, 
very  many  times,  in  Judge  Douglas's  hearing,  that  no  man 
believed  more  than  I  in  the  principal  of  self-government ;  that 
it  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  my  ideas  of  just  government,  from 
beginning  to  end.  I  have  denied  that  his  use  of  that  term 
applies  properly.  But  for  the  thing  itself,  I  deny  that  any 
-  man  has  ever  gone  ahead  of  me  in  his  devotion  to  the  princi 
ple,  whatever  he  may  have  done  in  efficiency  in  advocating  it. 
I  think  tli at  I  have  said  it  in  your  hearing — that  I  believe 
each  individual  is  naturally  entitled  to  do  as  he  pleases  with 
himself  and  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  so  far  as  it  in  no  wise  in 
terferes  with  any  other  man's  rights — that  each  community, 
as  a  State,  has  a  right  to  do  exactly  as  it  pleases  with  all  the 
concerns  within  that  State  that  interferes  with  the  right  of  no 
other  State,  and  that  the  general  government,  upon  princi 
ple,  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  anything  other  than  that 
general  class  of  things  that  does  concern  the  whole.  I  have 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  171 


said  that  at  all  times.  I  have  said,  as  illustrations,  that  I  do 
not  believe  in  the  right  of  Illinois  to  interfere  with  the  cran 
berry  laws  of  Indiana,  the  oyster  laws  of  Virginia,  or  the 
liquor  laws  of  Maine.  I  have  said  these  things  over  and  over 
again,  and  I  repeat  them  here  as  my  sentiments. 

How  is  it,  then,  that  Judge  Douglas  infers,  because  I  hope 
to  see  slavery  put  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  be 
lief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  that  I  am 
in  favor  of  Illinois  going  over  and  interfering  with  the  cran 
berry  laws  of  Indiana  ?  What  can  authorize  him  to  draw 
any  such  inference  ?  I  suppose  there  might  be  one  thing  that 
at  least  enabled  him  to  draw  such  an  inference  that  would  not 
be  true  with  me  or  many  others,  that  is,  because  he  looks  upon 
all  this  matter  of  slavery  as  an  exceedingly  little  thing — this 
matter  of  keeping  one  sixth  of  the  population  of  the  whole 
nation  in  a  state  of  oppression  and  tyranny  unequalled  in  the 
world.  He  looks  upon  it  as  being  an  exceedingly  little  thing 
— only  equal  to  the  question  of  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indi 
ana — as  something  having  no  moral  question  in  it — as  some 
thing  on  a  par  with  the  question  of  whether  a  man  shall  pas 
ture  his  land  with  cattle,  or  plant  it  with  tobacco — so  little 
and  so  small  a  thing,  that  he  concludes,  if  I  could  desire  that 
if  anything  should  be  done  to  bring  about  the  ultimate  ex 
tinction  of  that  little  thing,  I  must  be  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
an  amalgamation  of  all  the  other  little  things  in  the  Union. 
Now,  it  so  happens — and  there,  I  presume,  is  the  foundation 
of  this  mistake — that  the  Judge  thinks  thus  ;  and  it  so  hap 
pens  that  there  is  a  vast  portion  of  the  American  people  that 
do  not  look  upon  that  matter  .  as  being  this  very  little  thing. 
They  look  upon  it  as  a  vast  moral  evil ;  they  can  prove 
it  as  such  by  the  writings  of  those  who  gave  us  the  blessings 
of  liberty  which  we  enjoy,  and  that  they  so  looked  upon  it, 
and  not  as  an  evil  merely  confining  itself  to  the  States  where 
it  is  situated  ;  and  while  we  agree  that,  by  the  Constitution 
we  assented  to,  in  the  States  where  it  exists  we  have  no 
right  to  interfere  with  it,  because  it  is  in  the  Constitution  ; 
and  we  are  by  both  duty  and  inclination  to  stick  by  that  Con 
stitution,  in  all  its  letter  and  spirit,  from  beginning  to  end. 

So  much  then  as  to  my  disposition — my  wish — to  have  all 
the  State  Legislatures  blotted  out,  and  to  have  one  consoli 
dated  government,  and  a  uniformity  of  domestic  regulations  in 


172  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

all  the  States,  by  which  I  suppose  it  is  meant,  if  we  raise 
corn  here,  we  must  make  sugar-cane  grow  here  too,  and  we 
must  make  those  which  grow  North  grow  in  the  South.  All 
this,  I  suppose,  he  understands  I  am  in  favor  of  doing.  Now, 
so  much  for  all  this  nonsense — for  I  must  call  it  so.  The 
Judge  can  have  no  issue  with  me  on  a  question  of  establish 
ing  uniformity  in  the  domestic  regulations  of  the  States. 

A  little  now  on  the  other  point — the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
Another  of  the  issues,  he  says,  that  is  to  be  made  with  me,  is 
upon  his  devotion  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  my  opposi 
tion  to  it. 

I  have  expressed,  heretofore,  •  and  I  now  repeat,  my  opposi 
tion  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  but  I  should  be  allowed  to 
state  the  nature  of  that  opposition,  and  I  ask  your  indulgence 
while  I  do  so.  What  is  fairly  implied  by  the  term  Judge 
Douglas  has  used,  "  resistance  to  the  decision  ?"  I  do  not  re 
sist  it.  If  I  wanted  to  take  Dred  Scott  from  his  master,  I 
would  be  interfering  with  property,  and  that  terrible  difficulty 
that  Judge  Douglas  speaks  of,  of  interfering  with  property 
would  arise.  But  I  am  doing  no  such  thing  as  that,  but  all  that 
I  am  doing  is  refusing  to  obey  it  as  a  political  rule.  If  I 
were  in  Congress,  and  a  vote  should  come  up  on  a  question 
whether  slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  a  new  territory,  in 
spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  would  vote  that  it  should. 

That  is  what  I  would  do.  Judge  Douglas  said,  last 
night,  that  before  the  decision  he  might  advance  his  opinion, 
and  it  might  be  contrary  to  the  decision  when  it  was  made  ; 
but  after  it  was  made  he  would  abide  by  it  until  it  was 
reversed.  Just  so !  We  let  this  property  abide  by  the  de 
cision,  but  we  will  try  to  reverse  that  decision.  We  will 
try  to  put  it  where  Judge  Douglas  would  not  object,  for  he 
says  he  will  obey  it  until  it  is  reversed.  Somebody  has  to  re 
verse  that  decision,  since  it  is  made,  and  we  mean  to  reverse 
it,  and  we  mean  to  do  it  peaceably. 

What  are  the  uses  of  decisions  of  courts?  They  have  two 
uses.  As  rules  of  property  they  have  two  uses.  First — they 
decide  upon  the  question  before  the  court.  They  decide  in 
this  case  that  Dred  Scott  is  a.  slave.  Nobody  resists  that. 
Not  only  that,  but  they  say  to  everybody  else,  that  persons 
standing  just  as  Dred  Scott  stands,  is  as  he  is.  That  is,  they 
say  that  when  a  question  comes  up  upon  another  person,  it 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  173 

will  be  so  decided  again,  unless  the  court  decides  in  another 
way,  unless  the  court  overrules  its  decision.  Well,  we  mean 
to  do  what  we  can  to  have  the  court  decide  the  other  way. 
That  is  one  thing  we  mean  to  try  to  do. 

The  sacredness  that  Judge  Douglas  throws  around  this  de 
cision,  is  a  degree  of  sacredness  that  has  never  been  before 
thrown  around  any  other  decision.  I  have  never  heard  of 
such  a  thing.  Why,  decisions  apparently  contrary  to  that 
decision,  or  that  good  lawyers  thought  were  contrary  to  that 
decision,  have  been  made  by  that  very  court  before.  It  is 
the  first  of  its  kind  ;  it  is  an  astonisher  in  legal  history.  It 
is  a  new  wonder  of  the  world.  It  is  baseM  upon  falsehood  in 
the  main  as  to  the  facts — allegations  of  facts  upon  which  it 
stands  are  not  facts  at  all  in  many  instances,  and  no  decision 
made  on  any  question — the  first  instance  of  a  decision  made 
under  so  many  unfavorable  circumstances ;  thus  placed,  has  ever 
been  held  by  the  profession  as  law,  and  it  has  always  needed 
confirmation  before  the  lawyers  regarded  it  as  settled  law. 
But  Judge  Douglas  will  have  it  that  all  hands  must  take  this 
extraordinary  decision,  made  under  these  extraordinary  cir 
cumstances,  and  give  their  vote  in  Congress  in  accordance  with 
it,  yield  to  it,  and  obey  it  in  every  possible  sense.  Circum 
stances  alter  cases.  Do  not  gentlemen  here  remember  the 
case  of  that  same  Supreme  Court,  some  twenty-five  or  thirty 
years  ago,  deciding  that  a  National  Bank  was  constitutional  ? 
I  ask,  if  somebody  does  not  remember  that  a  National  Bank 
was  declared  to  be  constitutional  ?  Such  is  the  truth,  whether 
it  be  remembered  or  not.  The  bank  charter  ran  out,  and  a 
recharter  was  granted  by  Congress.  That  recharter  was  laid 
before  G  eneral  Jackson.  It  was  urged  upon  him,  when  he 
denied  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  had  decided  that  it  was  constitutional  ;  and  that  General 
Jackson  then  said  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  no  right  to  lay 
down  a  rule  to  govern  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Govern 
ment,  the  members  of  which  had  sworn  to  support  the  Con 
stitution — that  each  member  had  sworn  to  support  that  Con 
stitution  as  he  understood  it.  I  will  venture  here  to  say,  that 
I  have  heard  Judge  Douglas  say  that  he  approved  of  General 
Jackson  for  that  act.  What  has  now  become  of  all  his  tirade 
about  "  resistance  to  the  Supreme  Court?" 

My   fellow-citizens,  getting  back  a  little,  for  I   pass  from 


174  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

these  points,  when  Judge  Douglas  makes  his  threat  of  anni 
hilation  upon  the  "  alliance,"  he  is  cautious  to  say  that  that 
warfare  of  his  is  to  fall  upon  the  leaders  of  the  Republican 
party.  Almost  every  word  he  utters,  and  every  distinction  he 
makes,  has'  its  significance.  He  means  for  the  Republicans, 
who  do  not  count  themselves  as  leaders,  to  be  his  friends  ;  he 
makes  no  fuss  over  them ;  it  is  the  leaders  that  he  is  making 
war  upon.  He  wants  it  understood  that  the  mass  of  the  Re 
publican  party  are  really  his  friends.  It  is  only  the  leaders 
that  are  doing  something,  that  are  intolerant,  and  that  require 
extermination  at  his  hands.  As  this  is  clearly  and  unquestion 
ably  the  light  in  wliich  he  presents  that  matter,  I  want  to  ask 
your  attention,  addressing  myself  to  the  Republicans  here,  that 
I  may  ask  you  some  questions,  as  to  where  you,  as  the  Re 
publican  party,  would  be  placed  if  you  sustained  Judge  Doug 
las  in  his  present  position  by  a  re-election  ?  I  do  not  claim, 
gentlemen,  to  be  unselfish ;  I  do  not  pretend  that  I  would  not 
like  to  go  the  United  States  Senate,  I  make  no  such  hypocriti 
cal  pretence,  but  I  do  say  to  you  that  in  this  mighty  issue,  it  is 
nothing  to  you — nothing  to  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the 
nation — whether  or  not  Judge  Douglas  or  myself  shall  ever  be 
heard  of  after  this  night ;  it  may  be  a  trifle  to  either  of  us,  but 
in  connection  with,  this  mighty  question,  upon  which  hangs 
the  destinies  of  the  nation,  perhaps,  it  is  absolutely  noth 
ing  ;  but  where  will  you  be  placed  if  you  re-endorse  Judge 
Douglas  I  Don't  you  know  how  apt  he  is — how  exceedingly 
anxious  he  is  at  all  times  to  seize  upon  anything  and  every 
thing  to  persuade  you  that  something  he  has  done  you  did 
yourselves  ?  Why,  he  tried  to  persuade  you  last  that  night  our 
Illinois  Legislature  instructed  him  to  introduce  the  Nebraska 
bill.  There  was  nobody  in  that  Legislature  ever  thought  of 
such  thing ;  and  when  he  first  introduced  the  bill,  he  never 
thought  of  it ;  but  still  he  fights  furiously  for  the  proposition, 
and  that  he  did  it  because  there  was  a  standing  instruction  to 
our  Senators  to  be  always  introducing  Nebraska  bills.  He  tells 
you  he  is  for  the  Cincinnati  platform,  he  tells  you  he  is  for  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  He  tells  you,  not  in  his  speech  last 
night,  but  substantially  in  a  former  speech,  that  he  cares  not 
if  slavery  is  voted  up  or  down — he  tells  you  the  struggle  on 
Lecompton  is  past — it  may  come  up  again  or  not,  and  if  it 
does  he  stands  where  he  stood  when,  in  spite  of  him  and  his 


ABE AH AM    LINCOLN.  175 

opposition,  you  built  up  the  Republican  party.    If  you  endorse 
him,  you  tell  him  you  do  not  care  whether  slavery  be  voted  up 
or  down,  and  he  will  close,  or  try  to   close  your  mouths  with 
his  declaration,  repeated  by  the  day,  the  week,  the  month,  and 
the  year.      Is  that  what  you  mean  ?     [Cries   of  "  no,"  one 
voice,  "  yes."]     Yes,  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  always  been 
for  him,  if  you  mean  that.     No  doubt  of  that,  soberly  I  have 
said,  and  I  repeat  it.     I  think,  in  the  position  in  which  Judge 
Douglas  stood  in  opposing  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  he  was 
right ;  he  does  not  know  that  it  will  return,  but  if  it  does  we 
may  know  where  to  find  him,  and  if  it  does  not  we  may  know 
where  to  look  for  him,  and  that  is  on  the  Cincinnati  platform. 
Now,  I  could  ask   the  Republican  party,  after  all  the  hard 
names  that  Judge  Douglas  has  called  them  by — all  his  repeat 
ed  charges  of  their  inclination  to  marry  with  and  hug  negroes 
— all  his  declarations  of  Black  Republicanism — by  the  way, 
we  are  improving,  the  b\ack  has  got  rubbed  off — but  with  all 
that,  if  he  be  endorsed  by  Republican  votes,  where  do  you 
stand  ?     Plainly,  you  stand  ready  saddled,  bridled,  and  har 
nessed,  and  waiting  to  be  driven  over  to  the  slavery  extension 
camp  of  the  nation — just  ready  to  be  driven  over,  tied  togeth 
er  in  a  lot — to  be  driven  over,  every  man  with  a  rope  around 
his  neck,  that  halter  being  held  by  Judge  Douglas.     That  is 
the  question.     If  Republican   men  have  been  in  earnest  in 
what  they  have  done,  I  think  they  had  better  not  do  it ;  but  I 
think  that  the  Republican  party  is  made  up  of  those  who,  as 
far  as  they  can  peaceably,  will  oppose  the  extension  of  slavery, 
and  who  will  hope  for  its  ultimate  extinction.     If  they  believe 
it  is  wrong  in  grasping  up  the  new  lands  of  the  continent,  and 
keeping  them  from  the  settlement  of  free  white  laborers,  who 
want  the  land  to  bring  up  their  families  upon  ;  if  they  are  in 
earnest,  although  they  may  make  a  mistake,  they  will  grow 
restless,  and  the  time  will   come  when  they  will  come  back 
again  and  reorganize,  if  not  by  the  same  name,  at  least  upon 
the  same  principles  as  their  party  now  has.    It  is  better,  then, 
to  save  the  work  while  it  is  begun.     You  have  done  the  la 
bor  ;  maintain  it — keep  it.     If  men  choose  to  serve  you,  go 
with  them  ;  but  as  you  have  made  up  your  organization  upon 
principle,  stand  by  it ;  for,  as  surely  as  God  reigns  over  you, 
and  has  inspired  your  mind,  and  given  you  a  sense  of  propriety, 
and  continues  to  give  you  hope,  so  surely  will  you  still  cling  to 


176  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES     OF 

these  ideas,  and  you  will  at  last  come  back  again  after  your 
wanderings,  merely  to  do  your  work  over  again. 

We  were  often — more  than  once  at  least — in  the  course  of 
Judge  Douglas's  speech  last  night,  reminded  that  this  govern 
ment  was  made  for  white  men — that  he  believed  it  was  made 
for  white  men.  Well,  that  is  putting  it  into  a  shape  in  which 
no  one  wants  to  deny  it ;  but  the  Judge  then  goes  into  his 
passion  for  drawing  inferences  that  are  not  warranted.  I 
protest,  now  and  forever,  against  that  counterfeit  logic  which 
presumes  that  because  I  .did  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a 
slave,  I  do  necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.  My  understand 
ing  is  that  I  need  not  have  her  for  either,  but,  as  God  made 
us  separate,  we  can  leave  one  another  alone,  and  do  one  an 
other  much  good  thereby.  There  are  white  men  enough  to 
marry  all  the  white  women,  and  enough  black  men  to  marry 
all  the  black  women,  and  in  God's  name  let  them  be  so  mar 
ried.  The  Judge  regales  us  with  the  terrible  enormities  that 
take  place  by  the  mixture  of  races ;  that  the  inferior  race 
bears  the  superior  down.  Why,  Judge,  if  we  do  not  let  them 
get  together  in  the  territories  they  won't  mix  there. 

A  voice — "  Three  cheers  for  Lincoln.''  (The  cheers  were 
given  with  a  hearty  good  will.) 

Mr.  Lincoln — I  should  say  at  least  that  that  is  a  self-evi 
dent  truth. 

Now,  it  happens  that  we  meet  together  once,  every  year, 
sometimes  about  the  4th  of  July,  for  some  reason  or  other. 
These  4th  of  July  gatherings  I  suppose  have  their  uses.  If  you 
will  indulge  me,  I  will  state  what  I  suppose  to  be  some  of  them. 

We  are  now  a  mighty  nation  ;  we  are  thirty,  or  about 
thirty  millions  of  people,  and  we  own  and  inhabit  about  one 
fifteenth  part  of  the  dry  land  of  the  whole  earth.  We  run 
our  memory  back  over  the  pages  of  history  for  about  eighty- 
two  years,  and  we  discover  that  we  were  then  a  very  small 
people  in  point  of  numbers,  vastly  inferior  to  what  we  are 
now,  with  a  vastly  less  extent  of  country,  with  vastly  less  of 
everything  we  deem  desirable  among  men — we  look  upon  the 
change  as  exceedingly  advantageous  to  us  and  to  our  pos 
terity,  and  we  fix  upon  something  that  happened  away  back, 
as  in  some  way  or  other  being  connected  with  this  rise  of 
prosperity.  We  find  a  race  of  men  living  in  that  day  whom 
we  claim  as  our  fathers  and  grandfathers  ;  they  were  iron 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  177 

men ;  they  fought  for  the  principle  that  they  were  contending 
for  ;  and  we  understood  that  by  -what  they  then  did  it  has  fol 
lowed  that  the  degree  of  prosperity  which  we  now  enjoy  has 
come  to  us.  We  hold  this  annual  celebration  to  remind  our 
selves  of  all  the  good  done  in  this  process  of  time,  of  how  it 
was  done  and  who  did  it,  and  how  we  are  historically  con 
nected  with  it ;  and  we  go  from  these  meetings  in  better  hu 
mor  with  ourselves — we  feel  more  attached  the  one  to  the 
other,  and  more  firmly  bound  to  the  country  we  inhabit  In 
every  way  we  are  better  men  in  the  age,  and  race,  and  coun 
try  in  which  we  live,  for  these  celebrations.  But  after  we 
have  done  all  this  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  whole.  There 
is  something  else  connected  with  it.  We  have  besides  these, 
men — descended  by  blood  from  our  ancestors — among  us,  per 
haps  half  our  people,  who  are  not  descendants  at  all  of  these 
men  ;  they  are  men  who  have  come  from  Europe — German, 
Irish,  French,  and  Scandinavian — men  that  have  come  from 
Europe  themselves,  or  whose  ancestors  have  come  hither  and 
settled  here,  finding  themselves  our  equals  in  all  things.  If 
they  look  back  through  this  history  to  trace  their  connection 
with  those  days  by  blood,  they  find  they  have  none,  they  can 
not  carry  themselves  back  into  that  glorious  epoch  and  make 
themselves  feel  that  they  are  part  of  us,  but  when  they  look 
through  that  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  they  find  that 
those  old  men  say  that  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evi 
dent,  that  all  men  are  created  equal,"  and  then  they  feel  that 
that  moral  sentiment  taught  in  that  day  evidences  their  rela 
tion  to  those  men,  that  it  is  the  father  of  all  moral  principle 
in  them,  and  that  they  have  a  right  to  claim  it  as  though  they 
were  blood  of  the  blood,  and  flesh  of  the  flesh,  of  the  men  who 
wrote  that  Declaration,  and  so  they  are.  That  is  the  electric 
cord  in  that  Declaration  that  links  the  hearts  of  patriotic  and 
liberty-loving  men  together,  that  will  link  those  patriotic 
hearts  as  long  as  the  love  of  freedom  exists  in  the  minds  of 
men  throughout  the  world. 

Now,  sirs,  for  the  purpose  of  squaring  things  with  this  idea 
of  "  don't  care  if  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down,"  for  sus 
taining  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  for  holding  that  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  did  not  mean  anything  at  all,  we  have 
Judge  Douglas  giving  his  exposition  of  what  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  means,  and  we  have  him  saying  that  the 


178  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

people  of  America  are  equal  to  the  people  of  England.  Ac 
cording  to  his  construction,  you  Germans  are  not  connected 
with  it.  Now  I  ask  you  in  all  soberness,  if  all  these  things, 
if  indulged  in,  if  ratified,  if  confirmed  and  endorsed,  if  taught 
to  our  children,  and  repeated  to  them,  do  not  tend  to  rub  out 
the  sentiment  of  liberty  in  the  country,  and  to  transform  this 
government  into  a  government  of  some  other  form  ?  Those 
arguments  that  are  made,  that  the  inferior  race  are  to  be  treated 
with  as  much  allowance  as  they  are  capable  of  enjoying  ;  that 
as  much  is  to  be  done  for  them  as  their  condition  will  allow. 
What  are  these  arguments  ?  They  are  the  arguments  that 
kings  have  made  for  enslaving  the  people  in  all  ages  of  the 
world.  You  will  find  that  all  the  arguments  in  favor  of  king 
craft  were  of  this  class  ;  they  always  bestrode  the  necks  of 
the  people,  not  that  they  wanted  to  do  it,  but  because  the  peo 
ple  were  better  off  for  being  ridden.  That  is  their  argument, 
and  this  argument  of  the  Judge  is  the  same  old  serpent  that 
says  you  work  and  I  eat,  you  toil  and  I  will  enjoy  the  fruits 
of  it.  Turn  in  whatever  way  you  will — whether  it  come 
from  the  mouth  of  a  king,  an  excuse  for  enslaving  the  people 
of  his  country,  or  from  the  mouth  of  men  of  one  race  as  a 
reason  for  enslaving  the  men  of  another  race,  it  is  all  the  same 
old  serpent,  and  I  hold  if  that  course  of  argumentation  that 
is  made  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  the  public  mind  that 
we  should  not  care  about  this,  should  be  granted,  it  does  not 
stop  with  the  negro.  I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  the  old 
Declaration  of  Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are 
equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will 
it  stop  ?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  not 
another  say  it  does  not  mean  some  other  man  ?  If  that 
declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  the  statute  book  in 
which  we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out.  Who  is  so  bold  as  to  do  it  I 
If  it  is  not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out !  (Cries  of  "  No,  no !")  Let 
us  stick  to  it  then,  let  us  stand  firmly  by  it  then. 

It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that 
make  necessities  and  impose  them  upon  us,  and  to  the  extent 
that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man,  he  must  submit  to  it. 
I  think  that  was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves 
when  we  established  this  government.  We  had  slavery 
among  us,  we  could  not  get  our  Constitution  unless  we  per 
mitted  them  to  remain  in  slavery,  we  could  not  secure  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  179 

good  we  did  secure  if  we  grasped  for  more,  and  having  by 
necessity  submitted  to  that  much,  it  does  not  destroy  the  prin 
ciple  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let  that  charter 
stand  as  our  standard. 

My  friend  has  said  to  me  that  I  am  a  poor  hand  to  quote 
Scripture.  I  will  try  it  again,  however.  It  is  said  in  one  of 
the  admonitions  of  our  Lord,  "  As  your  Father  in  Heaven  is 
perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  The  Savior,  I  suppose,  did  not 
expect  that  any  human  creature  could  be  perfect  as  the  Fa 
ther  in  Heaven  ;  but  He  said,  "  As  your  Father  in  Heaven  is 
perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  He  set  that  up  as  a  standard, 
and  he  who  did  nlost  toward  reaching  that  standard,  attained 
the  highest  degree  of  moral  perfection.  So  I  say,  in  relation 
to  the  principle  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  let  it  be  as 
nearly  reached  as  we  can.  If  we  cannot  give  freedom  to 
every  creature,  let  us  do  nothing  that  will  impose  slavery  upon 
any  other  creature.  Let  us  then  turn  this  government  back 
into  the  channel  in  which  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  orig 
inally  placed  it.  Let  us  stand  firmly  by  each  other.  If  we 
do  not  do  so  we  are  turning  in  the  contrary  direction,  that  our 
.friend  Judge  Douglas  proposes — not  intentionally — as  work 
ing  in  the  traces  tends  to  make  this  one  universal  slave  nation. 
He  is  one  that  runs  in  that  direction,  and  as  such  I  resist 
him. 

My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desired 
to  do,  and  I  have  only  to  say,  let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling 
about  this  man  and  the  other  man — this  race  and  that  race  and 
the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be  placed 
in  an  inferior  position — discarding  our  standard  that  we  have 
left  us.  Let  us  discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  peo 
ple  throughout  this  land,  until  we  shall  once  more  stand  up 
declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

My  friends,  I  could  not,  without  launching  off  upon  some 
new  topic,  which  would  detain  you  too  long,  continue  to 
night.  I  thank  you  for  this  most  extensive  audience  that 
you  have  furnished  me  to-night.  I  leave  you,  hoping  that  the 
lamp  of  liberty  will  burn  in  your  bosoms  until  there  shall  no 
longer  be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal. 


180  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 


SPEECH    OF   ME.   LINCOLN, 

DELIVERED  in  SPRINGFIELD,  Saturday  evening,  July  17,  1858. 
(Mr.  Douglas  was  not  present. ) 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  Another  election,  which  is  deemed  an 
important  one,,  is  approaching,  and,  as  I  suppose,  the  Repub 
licans  will,  without  much  difficulty,  elect  their  State  ticket. 
But  in  regard  to  the  Legislature,  we,  the  Republicans,  labor 
under  some  disadvantages.  In  the  iirst  place,  we  have  a  Legis 
lature  to  elect  upon  an  apportionment  of  the  representation 
made  several  years  ago,  when  the  proportion  of  the  popula 
tion  was  far  greater  in  the  South  (as  compared  with  the  North) 
than  it  now  is ;  and  inasmuch  as  our  opponents  hold  almost 
entire  sway  in  the  South,  and  we  a  correspondingly  large  maj 
ority  in  the  North,  the  fact  that  we  are  now  to  be  represented 
as  we  were  years  ago,  when  the  population  was  different,  is, 
to  us,  a  very  great  disadvantage.  We  had  in  the  year  1855, 
according  to  law,  a  census  or  enumeration  of  the  inhabitants 
taken  for  the  purpose  of  a  new  apportionment  of  representa 
tion.  We  know  what  a  fair  apportionment  -of  representation 
upon  that  census  would  give  us.  We  know  that  it  could  not, 
if  fairly  made,  fail  to  give  the  Republican  party  from  six  to 
ten  more  members  of  the  Legislature  than  they  can  probably 
get  as  the  law  now  stands.  It  so  happened  at  the  last  session 
of  the  Legislature,  that  our  opponents,  holding  the  control  of 
both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  steadily  refused  to  give  us 
such  an  apportionment  as  we  were  rightly  entitled  to  have 
upon  the  census  already  taken.  The  Legislature  steadily  refused 
to  give  us  such  an  apportionment  as  we  were  rightfully  enti 
tled  to  have  upon  the  census  taken  of  the  population  of  the 
State.  The  Legislature  would  pass  no  bill  upon  that  subject, 
except  such  as  was  at  least  as  unfair  to  us  as  the  old  one,  and 
in  which,  in  some  instances,  two  men  in  the  Democratic 
regions  were  allowed  to  go  as  far  toward  sending  a  member 
to  the  Legislature  as  three  were  in  the  Republican  regions. 
Comparison  was  made  at  the  time  as  to  representative  and 
senatorial  districts,  which  completely  demonstrate^  that  such 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  181 

was  the  fact.  Such  a  bill  was  passed  and  tendered  to  the 
Republican  Governor  for  his  signature ;  but  principally  for 
the  reasons  I  have  stated,  he  withheld  his  approval,  and  the 
bill  fell  without  becoming  a  law. 

Another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor  is,  that  there 
are  one  or  two  Democratic  Senators  who  will  be  members  of 
the  next  Legislature,  and  will  vote  for  the  election  of  Senator, 
who  are  holding  over  in  districts  in  which  we  could,  on  all 
reasonable  calculation,  elect  men  of  our  own,  if  we  only  had 
the  chance  of  an  election.  When  we  consider  that  there  are 
but  twenty-five  Senators  in  the  Senate,  taking  two  from  the 
side  where  they  rightfully  belong  and  adding  them  to  the 
other,  is  to  us  a  disadvantage  not  to  be  lightly  regarded.  Still, 
so  it  is  ;  we  have  this  to  contend  with.  Perhaps  there  is  no 
ground  of  complaint  on  our  part.  In  attending  to  the  many 
things  involved  in  the  last  general  election  for  President,  Gov 
ernor,  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Members  of  Congress,  of  the  Legislature,  County  Officers,  and 
so  on,  we  allowed  these  things  to  happen  by  want  of  sufficient 
attention,  and  we  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  our  adver 
saries,  so  far  as  this  matter  is  concerned.  But  we  have  some 
cause  to  complain  of  the  refusal  to  give  us  a  fair  apportion 
ment. 

There  is  still  another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor, 
and  to  which  I  will  ask  your  attention.  It  arises  out  of  the  rela 
tive  positions  of  the  two  persons  who  stand  before  the  State  as 
candidates  for  the  Senate.  Senator  Douglas  is  of  world-wide 
renown.  All  the  anxious  politicians  of  his  party,  or  who  have 
been  of  his  party  for  years  past,  have  been  looking  upon  him  as 
certainly,  at  no  distant  day,  to  be  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  They  have  seen  in  his  round,  jolly,  fruitful  face, 
post-offices,  land-offices,  marshalships,  and  cabinet  appoint 
ments,  chargeships,  and  foreign  missions,  bursting  and  sprout 
ing  out  in  wonderful  exuberance,  ready  to  be  laid  hold  of  by 
their  greedy  hands.  And  as  they  have  been  gazing  upon  this 
attractive  picture  so  long,  they  cannot,  in  the  little  distraction 
that  has  taken  place  in  the  party,  bring  themselves  to  give  up 
the  charming  hope ;  but  with  greedier  anxiety  they  rush 
about  him,  sustain  him,  and  give  him  marches,  triumphal  en 
tries,  and  receptions  beyond  what,  even  in  the  days  of  his 
highest  prosperity,  they  could  have  brought  about  in  his 


182  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 


favor.  On  the  contrary,  nobody  has  ever  expected  me  to  be 
President.  In  my  poor,  lean,  lank  face,  nobody  has  ever  seen 
that  any  cabbages  were  sprouting  out.  These  are  disadvan 
tages,  all  taken  together,  that  the  Republicans  labor  under. 
We  have  to  fight  this  battle  upon  principle,  and  upon  principle 
alone.  I  am,  in  a  certain  sense,  made  the  standard-bearer  in  be 
half  of  the  Republicans-  I  was  made  so  merely  because  there 
had  to  be  some  one  so  placed — I  being  in  nowise  preferable 
to  any  other  one  of  the  twenty-five — perhaps  a  hundred  we 
have  in  the  Republican  ranks.  Then  I  say  I  wish  it  to  be  dis 
tinctly  understood  and  borne  in  mind  that  we  have  to  fight 
this  battle  without  many —  perhaps  without  any —  of  the 
external  aids  which  are  brought  to  bear  against  us.  So  I  hope 
those  with  whom  I  am  surrounded  have  principle  enough  to 
nerve  themselves  for  the  task,  and  leave  nothing  undone,  that 
can  be  fairly  done,  to  bring  about  the  right  result. 

After  Senator  Douglas  left  Washington,  as  his  movements 
were  made  known  by  public  prints,  he  tarried  a  considerable 
time  in  the  city  of  New-York  ;  and  it  was  heralded  that,  like 
another  Napoleon,  he  was  lying  by  and  framing  the  plan  of 
his  campaign.  It  was  telegraphed  to  Washington  City,  and 
published  in  the  Union,  that  he  was  framing  his  plan  for  the 
purpose  of  going  to  Illinois  to  pounce  upon  and  annihilate  the 
treasonable  and  disunion  speech  which  Lincoln  had  made  here 
on  the  16th  of  June.  Now,  I  do  suppose  that  the  Judge  really 
spent  some  time  in  New-York  maturing  the  plan  of  the  campaign, 
as  his  friends  heralded  for  him.  I  have  been  able,  by  noting 
his  movements  since  his  arrival  in  Illinois,  to  discover  evi 
dences  confirmatory  of  that  allegation.  I  think  I  have  been 
able  to  see  what  are  the  material  points  of  that  plan.  I  will, 
for  a  little  while,  ask  your  attention  to  some  of  them.  What 
I  shall  point  out,  though  not  showing  the  whole  plan,  are, 
nevertheless,  the  main  points,  as  I  suppose. 

They  are  not  very  numerous.  The  first  is  popular  sover 
eignty.  The  second  and  third  are  attacks  upon  my  speech 
made  on  the  16th  of  June.  Out  of  these  three  points — draw 
ing  within  the  range  of  popular  sovereignty  the  question  of  the 
Lecompton  constitution  —  he  makes  his  principal  assault. 
Upon  these  his  successive  speeches  are  substantially  one  and 
the  same.  On  this  matter  of  popular  sovereignty  I  wish  to 
be  a  little  careful.  Auxiliary  to  these  main  points,  to  be  sure, 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  183 

are  their  thunderings  of  cannon,  their  marching  and  music, 
their  fizzle-gigs  and  fire-works  ;  but  I  will  not  waste  time 
with  them.  They  are  but  the  little  trappings  of  the  cam 
paign. 

Coming  to  the  substance—the  first  point— popular  sovereignty. 
It  is  to  be  labeled  upon  the  cars  in  which  he  travels  ;  put  upon 
the  hacks  he  rides  in  ;  to  be  flaunted  upon  the  arches  he  passes 
under,  and  the  banners  which  wave  over  him.  It  is  to  be  dished 
up  in  as  many  varieties  as  a  French  cook  can  produce  soups 
from  potatoes.  Now,  as  this  is  so  great  a  staple  of  the  plan 
of  the  campaign,  it  is  worth  while  to  examine  it  carefully  ;  and 
if  we  examine  only  a  very  little,  and  do  not  allow  ourselves  to 
be  misled,  we  shall  be  able  to  see  that  the  whole  thing  is  the 
most  arrant  Quixotism  that  was  ever  enacted  before  a  com 
munity.  What  is  the  matter  of  popular  sovereignty  ?  The 
first  tiling,  in  order  to  understand  it,  is  to  get  a  good  definition 
of  what  it  is,  and  after  that  to  see  how  it  is  applied. 

I  suppose  almost  every  one  knows  that,  in  this  controversy, 
whatever  has  been  said  has  had  reference  to  the  question  of 
negro  slavery.  We  have  not  been  in  a  controversy  about  the 
right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves  in  the  ordinary  mat 
ters  of  domestic  concern  in  the  States  and  territories.  Mr. 
Buchanan,  in  one  of  his  late  messages  (I  think  when  he  sent 
up  the  Lecompton  constitution),  urged  that  the  main  point  to 
which  the  public  attention  had  been  directed,  was  not  in  re 
gard  to  the  great  variety  of  small  domestic  matters,  but  was 
directed  to  the  question  of  negro  slavery  ;  and  he  asserts,  that 
if  the  people  had  had  a  fair  chance  to  vote  on  that  question, 
there  was  no  reasonable  ground  of  objection  in  regard  to  minor 
questions.  Now,  while  I  think  that  the  people  had  not  had 
given,  or  offered  them,  a  fair  chance  upon  that  slavery  ques 
tion  ;  still,  if  there  had  been  a  fair  submission  to  a  -vote  upon 
that  main  question,  the  President's  proposition  would  have 
been  true  to  the  uttermost.  Hence,  when  hereafter  I  speak 
of  popular  sovereignty,  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  applying 
what  I  say  to  the  question  of  slavery  only,  not  to  other  minor 
domestic  matters  of  a  territory  or  a  State. 

Does  Judge  Douglas,  when  he  says  that  several  of  the  past 
years  of  his  life  have  been  devoted  to  the  question  of  "  popular 
sovereignty,"  and  that  all  the  remainder  of  his  life  shall  be  de 
voted  to  it,  does  he  mean  to  say  that  he  has  been  devoting  his 


184  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES    OF 

life  to  securing  to  the  people  of  the  territories  the  right  to  ex 
clude  slavery  from  the  territories  ?  If  he  means  so  to  say,  he 
means  to  deceive  ;  because  he  and  every  one  knows  that  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  he  approves  and  makes 
especial  ground  of  attack  upon  me  for  disapproving,  forbids 
the  people  of  a  territory  to  exclude  slavery.  This  covers  the 
whole  ground,  from  the  settlement  of  a  territory  till  it  reaches 
the  degree  of  maturity  entitling  it  to  form  a  State  constitution. 
So  far  as  all  that  ground  is  concerned,  the  Judge  is  not  sus 
taining  popular  sovereignty,  but  absolutely  opposing  it.  He 
sustains  the  decision  which  declares  that  the  popular  will  of 
the  territories  has  no  constitutional  power  to  exclude  slavery 
during  their  territorial  existence.  This  being  so,  the  period 
of  time  from  the  first  settlement  of  a  territory  till  it  reaches 
the  point  of  forming  a  State  constitution,  is  not  the  thing  that 
the  Judge  has  fought  for,  or  is  fighting  for,  but,  on  the  eontra- 
ry,  he  has  fought  for,  and  is  fighting  for,  the  thing  that  -anni 
hilates  and  crushes  out  that  same  popular  sovereignty. 

Well,  so  much  being  disposed  of,  what  is  left  *?  Why,  he 
is  contending  for  the  right  of  the  people,  when  they  come  to 
make  a  State  constitution,  to  make  it  for  themselves,  and  pre 
cisely  as  best  suits  themselves.  I  say  again,  that  is  Quixotic. 
I  defy  contradiction  when  I  declare  that  the  Judge  can  find  no 
one  to  oppose  him  on  that  proposition.  I  repeat,  there  is  no 
body  opposing  that  proposition  on  principle.  Let.  me  not  be 
misunderstood.  I  know  that,  with  reference  to  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution,  I  may  be  misunderstood  ;  but  when  you  un 
derstand  me  correctly,  my  proposition  will  be  true  and  accu 
rate.  Nobody  is  opposing,  or  has  opposed,  the  right  of  the 
people,  when  they  form  a  constitution,  to  form  it  for  them 
selves.  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his  friends  have  not  done  it;  they, 
too,  as  well  as  the  Republicans  and  the  Anti-Lecompton 
Democrats,  have  not  done  it;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they 
together  have  insisted  on  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  a 
constitution  for  themselves.  The  difference  between  the  Bu 
chanan  men  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Douglas  men  and  the 
Republicans  on  the  other,  has  not  been  on  a  question  of  prin 
ciple,  but  on  a  question  of  fact. 

The  dispute  was  upon  the  question  of  fact,  whether  the 
Lecompton  constitution  had  been  fairly  formed  by  the  people 
or  not.  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his  friends  have  not  contended 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  185 


for  the  contrary  principle  any  more  than  the  Douglas  men  or 
the  Republicans.  They  have  insisted  that  whatever  of  small 
irregularities  existed  in  getting  up  the  Lecompton  constitution 
were  such  as  happen  in  the  settlement  of  all  new  territories. 
The  question  was,  was  it  a  fair  emanation  of  the  people?  It 
was  a  question  of  fact  and  not  of  principle.  As  to  the  princi 
ple,  all  were  agreed.  Judge  Douglas  voted  with  the  Repub 
licans  upon  that  matter  of  fact. 

He  and  they,  by  their  voices  and  votes,  denied  that  it  was 
a  fair  emanation  of  the  people.  The  administration  affirmed 
that  it  was.  With  respect  to  the  evidence  bearing  upon  that 
question  of  fact,  I  readily  agree  that  Judge  Douglas  and  the 
Republicans  had  the  right  on  their  side,  and  that  the  adminis 
tration  was  wrong.  But  I  state  again,  as  a  matter  of  prin 
ciple,  there  is  no  dispute  upon  the  right  of  a  people  in  a  ter 
ritory,  merging  into  a  State  to  form  a  constitution  for  them 
selves,  without  outside  interference  from  any  quarter.  This 
being  so,  what  is  Judge  Douglas  going  to  spend  his  life  for? 
Is  he  going  to  spend  his  life  in  maintaining  a  principle  that 
nobody  on  earth  opposes?  Does  he  expect  to  stand  up  in 
majestic  dignity,  and  go  through  his  apotheosis  and  become  a 
god,  in  the  maintaining  of  a  principle  which  neither  man  nor 
mouse  in  all  God's  creation  is  opposing  ?  Now,  something  in 
in  regard  to  the  Lecompton  constitution  more  specially  ;  for  I 
pass  from  this  other  question  of  popular  sovereignty  as  the 
most  arrant  humbug  that  has  ever  been  attempted  on  an  in 
telligent  community. 

As  to  the  Lecompton  constitution,  I  have  already  said  that, 
on  the  question  of  fact  as  to  whether  it  was  a  fair  emanation 
of  the  people  or  not,  Judge  Douglas  with  the  Republicans  and 
some  Americans,  had  greatly  the  argument  against  the  admin 
istration  ;  and  while  I  repeat  this,  I  wish  to  know  what  there 
is  in  the  opposition  of  Judge  Douglas,  to  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution  that  entitles  him  to  be  considered  the  only  opponent 
to  it — as  being  par  excellence  the  very  quintessence  of  that  oppo 
sition.  I  agree  to  the  rightfulness  of  his  opposition.  He  in 
the  Senate  and  his  class  of  men  there  formed  the  number 
three  and  no  more.  In  the  House  of  Representatives  his  class 
of  men — the  Anti-Lecompton  Democrats — formed  a  number 
of  about  twenty.  It  took  one  hundred  and  twenty  to  defeat  the 
measure,  against  one  hundred  and  twelve.  Of  the  votes  of 


186  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

that  one  hundred  and  twenty,  Judge  Douglas's  friends  furnished 
twenty,  to  add  to  which  there  were  six  Americans  and  ninety- 
four  Republicans.  I  do  not  say  that  I  am  precisely  accurate 
in  their  numbers,  but  I  am  sufficiently  so  for  any  use  I  arn 
making  of  it. 

Why  is  it  that  twenty  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  credit  of 
doing  that  work,  and  the  hundred  none  of  it  ?  Why,  if,  as 
J«dge  Douglas  says,  the  honor  is  to  be  divided,  and  due 
credit  is  to  be  given  to  other  parties,  why  is  just  so  much  given 
as  is  consonant  with  the  wishes,  the  interests,  and  advance 
ment  of  the  twenty  ?  My  understanding  is,  when  a  common 
job  is  done,  or  a  common  enterprise  prosecuted,  if  I  put  in  five 
dollars  to  your  one,  I  have  a  right  to  take  out  five  dollars  to 
your  one.  But  he  does  not  so  understand  it.  He  declares 
the  dividend  of  credit  for  defeating  Lecompton  upon  a  basis 
which  seems  unprecedented  and  incomprehensible. 

Let  us  see.  Lecompton  in  the  raw  was  defeated.  It  after 
ward  took  a  sort  of  cooked-up  shape,  and  was  passed  in  the 
English  bill.  It  is  said  by  the  Judge  that  the  defeat  was  a 
good  and  proper  thing.  If  it  was  a  good  thing,  why  is  he  en 
titled  to  more  credit  than  others,  for  the  performance  of  that 
good  act,  unless  there  was  something  in  the  antecedents  of  the 
Republicans  that  might  induce  every  one  to  expect  them  to 
join  in  that  good  work,  and  at  the  same  time,  something  lead 
ing  them  to  doubt  that  he  would  ?  Does  he  place  his  supe 
rior  claim  to  credit,  on  the  ground  that  he  performed  a  good 
act  which  was  never  expected  of  him  ?  He  says  I  have  a 
proneness  for  quoting  scripture.  If  I  should  do  so  now,  it 
occurs  that  perhaps  he  places  himself  somewhat  upon  the 
ground  of  the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep,  which  went  astray 
upon  the  mountains,  and  when  the  owner  of  the  hundred 
sheep  found  the  one  that  was  lost,  and  threw  it  upon  his 
shoulders,  and  came  home  rejoicing,  it  was  said  that  there  was 
more  rejoicing  over  the  one  sheep  that  was  lost,  and  had  been 
found,  than  over  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the  fold.  The  appli 
cation  is  made  by  the  Savior  in  this  parable,  thus  :  "  Verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  there  is  more  rejoicing  in  heaven  over  one 
sinner  that  repenteth,  than  over  ninety  and  nine  just  persons 
that  need  no  repentance." 

And  now,  if  the  Judge  claims  the  benefit  of  this  parable, 
let  him  repent  Let  him  not  come  up  here  and  say:  "I  am 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  187 

the  only  just  person  ;  and  you  are  the  ninety-nine  sinners  !" 
Repentance  before  forgiveness  is  a  provision  of  the  Christian 
system,  and  on  that  condition  alone  will  the  Republicans  grant 
his  forgiveness. 

How  will  he  prove  that  we  have  ever  occupied  a  different 
position  in  regard  to  the  Lecompton  constitution,  or  any  prin 
ciple  in  it  1  He  says  he  did  not  make  his  opposition  on  the 
ground  as  to  whether  it  was  a  free  or  slave  constitution,  *md 
he  would  have  you  understand  that  the  Republicans  made  their 
opposition  because  it  ultimately  became  a  slave  constitution. 
To  make  proof  in  favor  of  himself  on  this  point,  he  reminds 
us  that  he  opposed  Lecompton  before  the  vote  was  taken  de 
claring  whether  the  State  was  to  be  be  free  or  slave.  But  he 
forgets  to  say  that  our  Republican  Senator,  Trumbull,  made 
a  speech  against  Lecompton  even  before  he  did. 

Why  did  he  oppose  it  ?  Partly,  as  he  declares,  because  the 
members  of  the  convention  who  framed  it  were  not  fairly 
elected  by  the  people ;  that  the  people  were  not  allowed  to 
vote  unless  they  had  been  registered  ;  and  that  the  people  of 
whole  counties,  in  some  instances,  were  not  registered.  For 
these  reasons  he  declares  the  constitution  was  not  an  emana 
tion,  in  any  sense,  from  the  people.  He  also  has  an  additional 
objection  as  to  the  mode  of  submitting  the  constitution  back 
to  the  people.  But  bearing  on  the  question  of  whether  the 
delegates  were  fairly  elected,  a  speech  of  his,  made  something 
more  than  twelve  months  ago,  from  this 'stand,  becomes  im 
portant.  It  was  made  a  little  while  before  the  election  of  the 
delegates  who  made  Lecompton.  In  that  speech,  he  declared 
there  was  every  reason  to  hope  and  believe  the  election  would 
be  fair  ;  and  if"  any  one  failed  to  vote,  it  would  be  his  own 
culpable  fault. 

I,  a  few  days  after,  made  a  sort  of  answer  to  that  speech. 
In  that  answer,  I  made,  substantially,  the  very  argument  with 
which  he  combated  his  Lecompton  adversaries  in  the  Senate 
last  winter.  I  pointed  to  the  facts  that  the  people  could  not 
vote  without  being  registered,  arid  that  the  time  for  registering 
had  gone  by.  I  commented  on  it  as  wonderful  that  Judge 
Douglas  could  be  ignorant  of  these  facts,  which  every  one  else 
in  the  nation  so  well  knew. 

I  now  pass  from  popular  sovereignty  and  Lecompton.  I 
may  have  occasion  to  refer  to  one  or  both. 


188  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

When  he  was  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign,  Napoleon- 
like,  in  New-York,  as  appears  by  two  speeches  I  have  heard 
him  deliver  since  his  arrival  in  Illinois,  he  gave  special  atten 
tion  to  a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  here  on  the  16th  of  June 
last  He  says  that  he  carefully  read  that  speech.  He  told 
us  that  at  Chicago,  a  week  ago  last  night,  and  he  repeated  it 
at  Bloomington  last  night.  Doubtless,  he  repeated  it  again 
to-day,  though  I  did  not  hear  him.  In  the  first  two  places — 
Chicago  and  Bloomington — I  heard  him  ;  to-day  I  did  not. 
He  said  he  had  carefully  examined  that  speech  ;  when,  he  did 
not  say  ;  but  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  it  was  when  he  was 
in  New- York,  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign.  I  am  glad  he 
did  read  it  carefully.  He  says  it  was  evidently  prepared  with 
great  care.  I  freely  admit  it  was  prepared  with  care.  I 
claim  not  to  be  more  free  from  errors  than  others — perhaps 
scarcely  so  much  ;  but  I  was  very  careful  not  to  put  anything 
in  that  speech  as  a  matter  of  fact,  or  make  any  inferences 
which  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  true,  and  fully  warrantable. 
If  I  had  made  any  mistake  I  was  willing  to  be  corrected  ;  if 
I  had  drawn  any  inference  in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas,  or 
any  one  else,  which  was  not  warranted,  I  was  fully  prepared 
to  modify  it  as  soon  as  discovered.  I  planted  myself  upon  the 
truth,  and  the  truth  only,  so  far  as  I  knew  it,  or  could  be 
brought  to  know  it. 

Having  made  that  speech  with  the  most  kindly  feelings  to 
ward  Judge  Douglas,  as  manifested  therein,  I  was  gratified 
when  I  found  that  he  had  carefully  examined  it,  and  had  de 
tected  no  error  of  fact,  nor  any  inference  against  him,  nor 
any  misrepresentations,  of  which  he  thought^fit  to  complain. 
In  neither  of  the  two  speeches  I  have  mentioned,  did  he  make 
any  such  complaint.  I  will  thank  any  one  who  will  inform 
me  that  he,  in  his  speech  to-day,  pointed  out  anything  I  had 
stated,  respecting  him,  as  being  erroneous.  I  presume  there 
is  no  such  thing.  I  have  reason  to  be  gratified  that  the  care 
and  caution  used  in  that  speech,  left  it  so  that  he,  most  of  all 
others  interested  in  discovering  error,  has  not  been  able  to 
point  out  one  thing  against  him  which  he  could  say  was 
wrong.  Pie  seizes  upon  the  doctrines  he  supposes  to  be  in 
cluded  in  that  speech,  and  declares  that  upon  them  will  turn 
the  issues  of  this  campaign.  He  then  quotes,  or  attempts  to 
quote,  from  my  speech.  I  will  not  say  that  he  wilfully  mis- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN-  189 

quotes,  but  he  does  fail  to  quote  accurately.  His  attempt  at 
quoting  is  from  a  passage  which  I  believe  I  can  quote  accu 
rately  from  memory.  I  shall  make  the  quotation  now,  with 
some  comments  upon  it,  as  I  have  already  said,  in  order  that 
the  Judge  shall  be  left  entirely  without  excuse  for  misrepre 
senting  me.  I  do  so  now,  as  I  hope,  for  the  last  time.  I  do 
this  in  great  caution,  in  order  that  if  he  repeats  his  misrepre 
sentation,  it  shall  be  plain  to  all  that  he  does  so  wilfully.  If, 
after  all,  he  still  persists,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  reconstruct 
the  course  I  have  marked  out  for  myself,  and  draw  upon  such 
humble  resources  as  I  have,  for  a  new  course,  better  suited  to 
the  real  exigencies  of  the  case.  I  set  out,  in  this  campaign, 
with  the  intention  of  conducting  it  strictly  as  a  gentleman,  in 
substance  at  least,  if  not  in  the  outside  polish.  The  latter'  I 
shall  never  be,  but  that  which  constitutes  the  inside  of  a  gen 
tleman  I  hope  I  understand,  and  am  not  less  inclined  to  prac 
tise  than  others.  It  was  my  purpose  and  expectation,  that 
this  canvass  would  be  conducted  upon  principle,  and  with 
fairness  upon  both  sides,  and  it  shall  not  be  my  fault  if  this 
purpose  and  expectation  shall  be  given  up. 

He  charges,  in  substance,  that  I  invite  a  war  of  sections  ; 
that  I  propose  all  the  local  institutions  of  the  different  States 
shall  become  consolidated  and  uniform.  What  is  there  in  the 
language  of  that  speech  which  expresses  such  purpose,  or 
bears  such  construction  ?  I  have  again  and  again  said  that 
I  would  not  enter  into  any  of  the  States  to  disturb  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery.  Judge  Douglas  said,  at  Bloomington,  that 
I  used  language  most  able  and  ingenious  for  concealing  what 
I  really  meant;  and  that  while  I  had  protested  against  enter 
ing  into  the  slave  States,  I  nevertheless  did  mean  to  go  on  the 
banks  of  the  Ohio  and  throw  missiles  into  Kentucky,  to  dis 
turb  them  in  their  domestic  institutions. 

I  said,  in  that  speech,  and  I  meant  no  more,  that  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery  ought  to  be  placed  in  the  very  attitude  where 
the  framers  of  this  government  placed  it  and  left  it.  I  do  not 
understand  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  left  the  peo 
ple  of  the  free  States  in  the  attitude  of  firing  bombs  or  shells 
into  the  slave  States.  I  was  not  using  that  passage  for  the 
purpose  for  which  he  infers  I  did  use  it.  I  said:  "We  are 
now  far  advanced  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  created 
for  the  avowed  object  and  with  the  confident  promise  of 


190  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of 
that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  till 
a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  that  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  It 
will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  op 
ponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it 
is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will 
push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

Now  you  all  see,  from  that  quotation,  I  did  not  express  my 
wish  on  anything.  In  that  passage  1  indicated  no  wish  or 
purpose  of  my  own ;  I  simply  expressed  my  expectation. 
Cannot  the  Judge  perceive  a  distinction  between  a  purpose  and 
an  expectation  ?  I  have  often  expressed  an  expectation  to  die, 
but  I  never  expressed  a  wish  to  die.  I  said  at  Chicago,  and 
now  repeat,  that  I  am  quite  aware  this  government  has  en 
dured,  half  slave  and  half  free,  for  eighty-two  years.  I  un 
derstand  that  little  bit  of  history.  I  expressed  the  opinion  I 
did,  because  I  perceived — or  thought  I  perceived — a  new  set 
of  causes  introduced.  I  did  say  at  Chicago,  in  my  speech 
there,  that  I  do  wish  to  see  the  spread  of  slavery  arrested,  and 
to  see  it  placed  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  said  that 
because  I  supposed,  when  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  that 
belief,  we  shall  have  peace  on  the  slavery  question.  I  have 
believed — and  now  believe — the  public  mind  did  rest  on  that 
belief  up  to  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill. 

Although  I  have  ever  been  opposed  to  slavery,  so  far  I 
rested  in  the  hope  and  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ulti 
mate  extinction.  For  that  reason,  it  had  been  a  minor  ques 
tion  with  me.  I  might  have  been  mistaken  ;  but  I  had  believed, 
and  now  believe,  that  the  whole  public  mind — that  is,  the 
mind  of  the  great  majority — had  rested  in  that  belief  up  to 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  compromise.  But  upon  that  event, 
I  became  convinced  that  either  I  had  been  resting  in  a  delu 
sion,  or  the  institution  was  being  placed  on  a  new  basis — a 
basis  for  making  it  perpetual,  national,  and  universal.  Sub 
sequent  events  have  greatly  confirmed  me  in  that  belief.  I 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  191 

believe  that  bill  to  be  the  beginning  of  a  conspiracy  for  that 
purpose.  So  believing,  I  have  since  then  considered  that 
question  a  paramount  one.  So  believing,  I  thought  the  public 
mind  will  never  rest  till  the  power  of  Congress  to  restrict  the 
spread  of  it  shall  again  be  acknowledged  and  exercised  on  the 
one  hand,  or  on  the  other,  all  resistance  be  entirely  crushed 
out.  I  have  expressed  that  opinion,  and  I  entertain  it 
to-night.  It  is  denied  that  there  is  any  tendency  to  the  na 
tionalization  of  slavery  in  these  States. 

Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  in  one  of  his  speeches, 
when  they  were  presenting  him  canes,  silver  plate,  gold  pitch 
ers,  and  the  like,  for  assaulting  Senator  Sumner,  distinctly 
affirmed  his  opinion  that  when  this  Constitution  was  formed, 
it  was  the  belief  of  no  man  that  slavery  would  last  to  the 
present  day. 

He  said,  what  I  think,  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitu 
tion  placed  the  institution  of  slavery  where  the  public  mind 
rested  in  the  hope  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  ex 
tinction.  But  he  went  on  to  say  that  the  men  of  the  present 
age,  by  their  experience,  have  become  wiser  than  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  ;  and  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  had 
made  the  perpetuity  of  slavery  a  necessity  in  this  country. 

As  another  piece  of  evidence  tending  to  this  same  point : 
Quite  recently  in  Virginia,  a  man — the  owner  of  slaves — 
made  a  will,  providing  that,  after  his  death,  certain  of  his 
slaves  should  have  their  freedom,  if  they  should  so  choose, 
and  go  to  Liberia,  rather  than  remain  in  slavery.  They 
chose  to  be  liberated.  But  the  persons  to  whom  they  would 
descend  as  property,  claimed  them  as  slaves.  A  suit  was  in 
stituted,  which  finally  came  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Vir 
ginia,  and  was  therein  decided  against  the  slaves,  upon  the 
ground  that  a  negro  cannot  make  a  choice — that  they  had  no 
legal  power  to  choose — could  not  perform  the  condition  upon 
which  their  freedom  depended. 

I  do  not  mention  this  with  any  purpose  of  criticising  it, 
but  to  connect  it  with  the  arguments  as  affording  additional 
evidence  of  the  change  of  sentiment  upon  this  question  of 
slavery  in  the  direction  of  making  it  perpetual  and  national. 
I  argue  now,  as  I  did  before,  that  there  is  such  a  tendency, 
and  I  am  backed  not  merely  by  the  facts,  but  by  the  open 
confession  in  the  slave  States. 


192  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

And  now,  as  to  the  Judge's  inference,  that  because  I  wish 
to  see  slavery  placed  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction — 
placed  where  our  fathers  originally  placed  it — I  wish  to 
annihilate  the  State  Legislatures — to  force  cotton  to  grow  on 
the  tops  of  the  Green  Mountains — to  freeze  ice  in  Florida — 
to  cut  lumber  on  the  broad  Illinois  prairies — that  I  am  in 
favor  of  all  these  ridiculous  and  impossible  things. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  complete  answer  to  all  this  to  ask,  if, 
when  Congress  did  have  the  fashion  of  restricting  slavery 
from  free  territory — when  courts  did  have  the  fashion  of  de 
ciding  that  taking  a  slave  into  a  free  country  made  him 
free — I  say  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  ask,  if  any  of  this 
ridiculous  nonsense  about  consolidation,  and  uniformity,  did 
actually  follow  ?  Who  heard  of  any  such  thing,  because  of 
the  Ordinance  of  '87  ?  because  of  the  Missouri  restriction  ? 
because  of  the  numerous  court  decisions  of  that 'character? 

Now,  as  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision ;  for  upon  that  he 
makes  his  last  point  at  me.  He  boldly  takes  ground  in  favor 
of  that  decision. 

This  is  one  half  the  onslaught,  and  one  third  of  the  entire 
plan  of  the  campaign.  I  am  opposed  to  that  decision  in  a 
certain  sense,  but  not  in  the  sense  which  he  puts  on  it.  I  say 
that  in  so  far  as  it  decided  in  favor  of  Dred  Scott's  master, 
and  against  Dred  Scott  and  his  family,  I  do  not  propose  to 
disturb  or  resist  the  decision. 

I  never  have  proposed  to  do  any  such  thing.  I  think,  that 
in  respect  for  judicial  authority,  my  humble  history  would  not 
suffer  in  comparison  with  that  of  Judge  Douglas.  He  would 
have  the  citizen  conform  his  vote  to  that  decision  ;  the  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  his  ;  the  President,  his  use  of  the  veto  power. 
He  would  make  it  a  rule  of  political  action  for  the  people  and 
all  the  departments  of  government.  I  would  not.  By  re 
sisting  it  as  a  political  rule,  I  disturb  no  right  of  property, 
create  no  disorder,  excite  no  mobs. 

When  he  spoke  at  Chicago,  on  Friday  evening  of  last  week, 
he  made  this  same  point  upon  me.  On  Saturday  evening  I 
replied,  and  reminded  him  of  a  Supreme  Court  decision  which 
he  opposed  for  at  least  several  years.  Last  night,  at  Bloom- 
ington,  he  took  some  notice  of  that  reply  ;  but  entirely  forgot 
to  remember  that  part  of  it. 

He  renews  his  onslanght  upon  me,  forgetting  to  remember 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  193 

that  I  have  turned  the  tables  against  himself  on  that  very 
point.  I  renew  the  effort  to  draw  his  attention  to  it.  I  wish 
to  stand  erect  before  the  country,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas, 
on  this  question  of  judicial  authority;  and  therefore  I  add 
something  to  the  authority  in  favor  of  my  own  position.  I 
wish  to  show  that  I  arn  sustained  by  authority,  in  addition 
to  that  heretofore  presented.  I  do  not  expect  to  convince  the 
Judge.  It  is  part  of  the  plan  of  his  campaign,  and  he  will 
cling  to  it  with  a  desperate  gripe.  Even,  turn  it  upon  him — 
the  sharp  point  against  him,  and  gaff  him  through — he  will 
still  cling  to  it  till  he  can  invent  s.ome  new  dodge  to  take  the 
place  of  it. 

In  public  speaking  it  is  tedious  reading  from  documents  ; 
but  I  must  beg  to  indulge  the  practice  to  a  limited  extent.  I 
shall  read  from  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  1820,  and 
now  to  be  found  in  the  seventh  volume  of  his  correspondence, 
at  page  177.  It  seems  he  had  been  presented  by  a  gentleman 
of  the  name  of  Jarvis  with  a  book,  or  essay,  or  periodical, 
called  the  ''  Republican,"  and  he  was  writing  in  acknowledg 
ment  of  the  present,  and  noting  some  of  its  contents.  After 
expressing  the  hope  that  the  work  will  produce  a  favorable 
effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  young,  he  proceeds  to  say  : 

"  That  it  will  have  this  tendency  may  be  expected,  and  for 
that  reason  I  feel  an  urgency  to  note  what  I  deem  an  error  in 
it,  the  more  requiring  notice  as  your  opinion  is  strengthened 
by  that  of  many  others.  You  seem,  in  pages  84  and  148,  to 
consider  the  judges  as  the  ultimate  arbiters  of  all  constitutional 
questions — a  very  dangerous  doctrine  indeed,  and  one  which 
would  place  us  under  the  despotism  of  an  oligarchy.  Our 
judges  are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more  so.  They 
have,  with  others,  the  same  passions  for  party,  for  power,  and 
the  privilege  of  their  corps.  Their  maxim  is,  4  boni  judicis 
est  arnpliare  jurisdictionem  ;'  and  their  power  is  the  more  dan 
gerous  as  they  are  in  office  for  life,  and  not  responsible,  as  the 
other  functionaries  are,  to  the  elective  control.  The  Constitu-' 
tion  has  erected  no  such  single  tribunal,  knowing  that,  to 
whatever  hands  confided,  with  the  corruptions  of  time  and 
party,  its  members  would  become  despots.  It  has  more  wisely 
made  all  the  departments  coequal  and  cosovereign  with  them 
selves." 

Thus  we  see  the  power  claimed  for  the  Supreme  Court  by 

9 


194  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


Judge  Douglas,  Mr.  Jefferson  holds,  would  reduce  us  to  the 
despotism  of  an  oligarchy. 

Now,  I  have  said  no  more  than  this — in  fact,  never  quite 
so  much  as  this — at  least  I  am  sustained  by  Mr.  Jeiferson. 

Let  us  go  a  little  farther.  You  remember  we  once  had  a 
National  Bank.  Some  one  owed  the  bank  a  debt ;  he  was 
sued  and  sought  to  avoid  payment,  on  the  ground  that  the 
bank  was  unconstitutional.  The  case  went  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  therein  it  was  decided  that  the  bank  was  constitu 
tional.  The  whole  democratic  party  revolted  against  that  de 
cision.  General  Jackson  himself  asserted  that  he,  as  Presi 
dent,  would  not  be  bound  to  hold  a  National  Bank  to  be 
constitutional,  even  though  the  court  had  decided  it  to  be  so. 
He  fell  in  precisely  with  the  view  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  acted 
upon  it  under  his  official  oath,  in  vetoing  a  charter  for  a 
National  Bank.  The  declaration  that  Congress  does  not  pos 
sess  this  constitutional  power  to  charter  a  bank,  has  gone  into 
the  democratic  platform,  at  their  national  conventions,  and 
was  brought  forward  and  reaffirmed  in  their  last  convention 
at  Cincinnati.  They  have  contended  for  that  declaration,  in 
the  very  teeth  of  the  Supreme  Court,  for  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  century.  In  fact,  they  have  reduced  the  decision  to  an 
absolute  nullity.  That  decision,  I  repeat,  is  repudiated  in  the 
Cincinnati  platform  ;  and  still,  as  if  to  show  that  effrontry 
can  go  no  farther,  Judge  Douglas  vaunts  in  the  very  speeches 
in  which  he  denounces  me  for  opposing  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision,  that  he  stands  on  the  Cincinnati  platform. 

Now,  I  wish  to  know  what  the  Judge  can  charge  upon  me, 
with  respect  to  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  does 
not  lie  in  all  its  length,  breadth,  and  proportions  at  his  own 
door.  The  plain  truth  is  simply  this  :  Judge  Douglas  is  for 
Supreme  Court  decisions  when  he  likes  and  against  them 
when  he  does  not  likes  them.  He  is  for  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  because  it  tends  to  nationalize  slavery — because  it  is 
part  of  the  original  combination  for  that  object.  It  so  hap 
pens,  singularly  enough,  that  I  never  stood  opposed  to  a 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  till  this.  On  the  contrary,  I 
have  no  recollection  that  he  was  ever  particularly  in  favor  of 
one  till  this.  He  never  was  in  favor  of  any,  nor  opposed  to 
any,  till  the  present  one,  which  helps  to  nationalize  slavery. 

Free  men  men  of  Sangamon — free  men   of  Illinois — free 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  195 

men  everywhere — judge  ye  between  him  and  me,  upon  this 
issue. 

Pie  says  this  Dred  Scott  case  is  a  very  small  matter  at  most 
— that  it  has  no  practical  effect  ;  that  at  best,  or  rather,  I 
suppose,  at  worst,  it  is  but  an  abstraction.  I  submit  that  the 
proposition,  that  the  thing  which  determines  whether  a  man  is 
free  or  a  slave,  is  rather  concrete  and  abstract.  L  think  you 
would  conclude  that  it  was,  if  your  liberty  depended  upon  it, 
and  so  would  Judge  Douglas  if  his  liberty  depended  upon  it. 
But  suppose  it  was  on  the  question  of  spreading  slavery  over 
the  new  territories  that  he  considers  it  as  being  merely  an  abstract 
matter,  and  one  of  no  practical  importance.  How  has  the 
planting  of  slavery  in  new  countries  always  been  effected  ?  It 
has  now  been  decided  that  shivery  cannot  be  kept  out  of  our  new 
territories  by  any  legal  means.  In  what  does  our  new  territories 
now  differ  in  this  respect  from  the  old  colonies  when  slavery 
was  first  planted  within  them?  It  was  planted,  as  Mr.  Clay 
once  declared,  and  as  history  proves  true,  by  individual  men 
in  spite  of  the  wishes  of  the  people;  the  mother  government 
refusing  to  prohibit  it,  and  withholding  from  the  people  of  the 
colonies  the  authority  to  prohibit  it  for  themselves.  Mr. 
Clay  says  this  was  one  of  the  great  and  just  causes  of  com 
plaint  against  Great  Britain  by  the  colonies,  and  the  best 
apology  we  can  now  make  for  having  the  institution  among 
us.  In  that  precise  condition  our  Nebraska  politicians  have 
at  last  succeeded  in  placing  our  own  new  territories;  the  gov 
ernment  will  not  prohibit  slavery  within  them,  nor  allow  the 
people  to  prohibit  it. 

I  defy  any  man  to  find  any  difference  between  the  policy 
which  originally  planted  slavery  in  these  colonies  and  that 
policy  which  now  prevails  in  our  new  territories.  If  it  does 
not  go  into  them,  it  is  only  because  no  individual  wishes  it  to 
go.  The  Judge  indulged  himself,  doubtless  to-day,  with  the 
question  as  to  what  I  am  going  to  do  with  or  about  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.  Well,  Judge,  will  you  please  to  tell  me  what 
you  did  about  the  bank  decision  ?  Will  you  not  graciously 
allow  us  to  do  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision  precisely  as  you 
did  with  the  bank  decision?  You  succeeded  in  breaking  down 
the  moral  effect  of  that  decision  ;  did  you  find  it  necessary  to 
amend  the  Constitution  ?  or  to  set  up  a  court  of  negroes  in 
order  to  do  it  ? 


196  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

There  is  one  other  point.  Judge  Douglas  has  a  very  affec 
tionate  leaning  toward  the  Americans  and  Old  Whigs.  Last 
evening,  in  a  sort  of  weeping  tone,  he  described  to  us  a  death 
bed  scene.  He  had  been  called  to  the  side  of  Mr.  Clay,  in 
his  last  moments,xin  order  that  the  genius  of  "  popular  sover 
eignty"  might  duly  descend  from  the  dying  man  and  settle 
upon  him,  the  living  and  most  worthy  successor.  He  could 
do  no  less  than  promise  that  he  would  devote  the  remainder  of 
his  life  to  "  popular  sovereignty  ;"  and  then  the  great  statesman 
departs  in  peace.  By  this  part  of  the  * '  plan  of  the  cam 
paign,"  the  Judge  has  evidently  promised  .himself  that  tears 
shall  be  drawn  down  the  cheeks  of  all  Old  Whigs,  as  large  as 
half-grown  apples. 

Mr.  Webster,  too,  was  mentioned  ;  but  it  did  not  quite 
come  to  a  death-bed  scene,  as  to  him.  It  would  be  amusing, 
if  it  were  not  disgusting,  to  see  how  quick  these  compromise- 
breakers  administer  on  the  political  effects  of  their  dead  ad 
versaries,  trumping  up  claims  never  before  heard  of,  arid  di 
viding  the  assets  among  themselves.  If  I  should  be  found 
dead  to-morrow  morning,  nothing  but  my  insignificance  could 
prevent  a  speech  being  made  on  my  authority,  before  the  end 
of  next  week.  It  so  happens  that  in  that  "  popular  sover 
eignty"  with  which  Mr.  Clay  was  identified,  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  expressly  reserved  ;  and  it  was  a  little  singu 
lar  if  Mr.  Clay  cast  his  mantle  upon  Judge  Douglas  on  pur 
pose  to  have  that  compromise  repealed. 

Again,  the  Judge  did  not  keep  faith  with  Mr.  Clay  when  he 
first  brought  in  his  Nebraska  bill.  He  left  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  unrepealed,  and  in  his  report  accompanying  the  bill, 
he  told  the  world  he  did  it  on  purpose.  The  manes  of  Mr. 
Clay  must  have  been  in  great  agonyvtill  thirty  days  later, 
when  "  popular  sovereignty"  stood  fortH  in  all  its  glory. 

One  more  thing.  Last  night  Judge  Douglas  tormented 
himself  with  horrors  about  my  disposition  to  make  negroes 
perfectly  equal  with  white  men  in  social  and  political  relations. 
He  did  not  stop  to  show  that  I  have  said  any  such  thing,  or 
that  it  legitimately  follows  from  anything  I  have  said,  but  he 
rushes  on  with  his  assertions.  I  adhere  to  the  Declaraiion  of 
Independence.  If  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  are  not  wil 
ling  to  stand  by  it,  let  them  come  up  and  amend  it.  Let 
them  make  it  read  that  all  men  are  created  equal  except  ne- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  197 


groes.  Let  us  have  it  decided,  whether  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  in  this  blessed  year  of  1858,  shall  be  thus 
amended.  In  his  construction  ol  the  Declaration  last  year, 
he  said  it  only  meant  that  Americans  in  America  were  equal 
to  Englishmen  in  England.  Then,  when  I  pointed  out  to  him 
that  by  that  rule  he  excludes  the  Germans,  the  Irish,  the  Por 
tuguese,  and  all  the  other  people  who  have  come  among  us 
since  the  Revolution,  he  reconstructs  his  construction.  In  his 
last  speech  he  tells  us  it  meant  Europeans. 

I  press  him  a  little  further,  and  ask  if  it  meant  to  include  the 
Russians  in  Asia?  or  does  he  mean  to  exclude  that  vast  popula 
tion  from  the  principles  of  our  Declaration  of  Independence  ? 
I  expect  ere  long  he  will  introduce  another  amendment  to  his 
definition.  He  is  not  at  all  particular.  He  is  satisfied  with 
anything  which  does  not  endanger  the  nationalizing  of  negro 
slavery.  It  may  draw  white  men  down,  but  it  must  not  lift 
negroes  up.  Who  shall  say,  "  I  am  the  superior,  and  you  are 
the  inferior  ?" 

My  declarations  upon  this  subject  of  negro  slavery  may  be 
misrepresented,  but  cannot  be  misunderstood.  I  have  said 
that  I  do  not  understand  the  Declaration  to  mean  that  all 
men  were  created  equal  in  all  respects.  They  are  not  our 
equal  in  color ;  but  I  suppose  that  it  does  mean  to  declare  that 
all  men  are  equal  in  some  respects ;  they  are  equal  in  their 
right  to  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Cer 
tainly  the  negro  is  not  our  equal  in  color — perhaps  not  in 
many  other  respects  ;  still,  in  the  right  to  put  into  his  mouth 
the  bread  that  his  own  hands  have  earned,  he  is  the  equal  of 
every  other  man,  white  or  black  In  pointing  out  that  more 
has  been  given  you,  you  cannot  be  justified  in  taking  away  the 
little  which  has  been  given  him.  All  I  ask  for  the  negro  is 
that  if  you  do  not  like  him,  let  him  alone.  If  God  gave  him 
but  little,  that  little  let  him  enjoy. 

When  our  government  was  established,  we  had  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery  among  us.  We  were  in  a  certain  sense  com 
pelled  to  tolerate  its  existence.  It  was  a  sort  of  necessity. 
We  had  gone  through  our  struggle  and  secured  our  own  inde 
pendence.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  found  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery  among  their  other  institutions  at  the  time. 
They  found  that  by  an  effort  to  eradicate  it,  they  might  lose 
much  of  what  they  had  already  gained.  They  were  obliged 


198  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


to  bow  to  the  necessity.  They  gave  power  to  Congress  to 
abolish  the  slave  trade  at  the  end  of  twenty  years.  They  also 
prohibited  it  in  the  territories  where  it  did  not  exist.  They 
did  what  they  could  and  yielded  to  the  necessity  for  the  rest 
I  also  yield  to  all  which  follows  from  that  necessity.  What  I 
wou  d  most  desire  would  be  the  separation  of  the  white  and 
black  races. 

One  more  point  on  this  Springfield  speech  which  Judge 
Douglas  says  he  has  read  so  carefully.  I  expressed  my  be 
lief  in  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  to  perpetuate  and  nation 
alize  slavery.  I  did  not  profess  to  know  it,  nor  do  I  now.  I 
showed  the  part  Judge  Douglas  had  played  in  the  string  of 
facts,  constituting  to  my  mind  the  proof  of  that  conspiracy. 
I  showed  the  parts  played  by  others. 

I  charged  that  the  people  had  been  deceived  into  carrying 
the  last  Presidential  election,  by  the  impression  that  the  peo- 
dle  of  the  territories  might  exclude  slavery  if  they  chose, 
when  it  was  known  in  advance  by  the  conspirators,  that  the 
court  was  to  decide  that  neither  Cougress  nor  the  people  could 
so  exclude  slavery.  These  charges  are  more  distinctly  made 
than  anything  else  in  the  speech. 

Judge  Douglas  has  carefully  read  and  re-read  that  speech. 
He  has  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  contradicted  those  charges.  In 
the  two  speeches  which  I  heard,  he  certainly  did  not.  On  his 
own  tacit  admission  I  renew  that  charge.  I  charge  him  as 
having  been  a  party  to  that  conspiracy  and  to  that  deception 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  nationalizing  slavery. 


MK.    LINCOLN'S    SPEECH, 

AT  GALESBUUGII,  Oct.  7,  1858. 

MY  FKLLOW-CITIZENS  :  A  very  large  portion  of  the  speech 
which  Judge  Douglas  has  addressed  to  you  has  previously  been 
delivered  and  put  in  print.  I  do  not  mean  that  for  a  hit  upon 
the  Judge  at  all.  If  I  had  not  been  interrupted  I  was  going 
to  say  that  such  an  answer  as  I  was  able  to  make  to  a  very 
large  portion  of  it,  had  already  been  more  than  once  made  and 
published.  There  has  been  an  opportunity  alibrded  to  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  199 

public  to  see  our  respective  views  upon  the  topics  discussed  in 
a  large  portion  of  the  speech  which  he  has  just  delivered.  I 
make  these  remarks  for  the  purpose  of  excusing  myself  for  not 
passing  over  the  entire  ground  that  the  Judge  has  traversed. 
I,  however, desire  to  take  up  some  of  the  points  that  he  has  at 
tended  to,  and  ask  your  attention  to  them,  and  I  shall  follow 
him  backward  upon  some  notes  which  I  have  taken,  revers 
ing  the  order  by  beginning  where  he  concluded. 

The  Judge  has  alluded  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
and  insisted  that  negroes  are  not  included  in  that  Declaration  ; 
and  that  it  is  a  slander  upon  the  framers  of  that  instrument, 
to  suppose  that  negroes  were  meant  therein  ;  and  he  asks  you  : 
Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  penned  the 
immortal  paper,  could  have  supposed  himself  applying  the  lan 
guage  of  that  instrument  to  the  negro  race,  and  yet  held  a 
portion  of  that  race  in  slavery  ?  Would  he  not  at  once  have 
freed  them  ?  I  only  have  to  remark  upon  this  part  of  the 
Judge's  speech  (and  that,  too,  very  briefly,  for  I  shall  riot  de 
tain  myself,  or  you,  upon  that  point  for  any  great  length  of 
time),  that  I  believe  the  entire  records  of  the  world,  from  the 
date  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  up  to  within  three 
years  ago,  may  be  searched  in  vain  for  one  single  affirmation,  from 
one  single  man,  that  the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence  ;  I  think  I  may  defy  Judge  Douglas  to 
show  that  he  ever  said  so,  that  Washington  ever  said  so,  that 
any  President  ever  said  so,  that  any  member  of  Congress  ever 
said  so,  or  that  any  living  man  upon  the  whole  earth  ever 
said  so,  until  the  necessities  of  the  present  policy  of  the  Dem 
ocratic  party,  in  regard  to  slavery,  had  to  invent  that  affirma 
tion.  And  I  will  remind  Judge  Douglas  and  this  audience, 
that  while  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  owner  of  slaves,  as  un 
doubtedly  he  was,  in  speaking  upon  this  very  subject,  he  used 
the  strong  language  that  "  he  trembled  for  his  country  when 
he  remembered  that  G-od  was  just  ;"  and  I  will  offer  the  high 
est  premium  in  my  power  to  Judge  Douglas  if  he  will  show 
that  he,  in  all  his  life,  ever  uttered  a  sentiment  at  all  akin  to 
that  of  Jefferson. 

The  next  thing  to  which  I  will  ask  your  attention  is  the 
Judge's  comments  upon  the  fact,  as  he  assumes  it  to  be,  that 
we  cannot  call  our  public  meetings  as  Republican  meetings ; 
and  he  instances  Tazewell  county  as  one  of  the  places  where 


200  LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

the  friends  of  Lincoln  have  called  a  public  meeting  and  have 
not  dared  to  name  it  a  .Republican  meeting.  He  instances 
Monroe  county  as  another  where  Judge  Trurnbull  and  Jehu 
Baker  addressed  the  persons  whom  the  Judge  assumes  to  be 
the  friends  of  Lincoln,  calling  them  the  "  Free  Democracy." 
1  have  the  honor  to  inform  Judge  Douglas  that  he  spoke  in 
that  very  county  of  Tazewell  last  'Saturday,  and  I  was  there 
on  Tuesday  la«t,  and  when  he  spoke  there  he  spoke  under  a 
call  not  venturing  to  use  the  word  "  Democrat. "  [Turning 
to  Judge  Douglas.]  What  think  you  of  this? 

So  again,  there  is  another  thing  to  which  I  would  ask  the 
Judge's  attention  upon  this  subject.  In  the  contest  of  1856 
his  party  delighted  to  call  themselves  together  as  the  "  Na 
tional  Democracy,"  but  now,  if  there  should  be  a  notice  put  up 
anywhere,  for  a  meeting  of  the  "  National  Democracy."  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  would  not  come.  They  would  not 
suppose  themselves  invited.  They  would  understand  that  it 
was  a  call  for  those  hateful  post-masters  whom  he  talks  about. 

Now  a  few  words  in  regard  to  these  extracts  from  speeches 
of  mine,  which  Judge  Douglas  has  read  to  you,  and  which  he 
supposes  are  in  very  great  contrast  to  each  other.  Those 
speeches  have  been  before  the  public  for  a  considerable  time, 
and  if  they  have  any  inconsistency  in  them,  if  there  is 
any  conflict  in  them,  the  public  have  been  able  to  detect  it. 
When  the  Judge  says,  in  speaking  on  this  subject,  that  I  make 
speeches  of  one  sort  for  the  people  of  the  northern  end  of  the 
State,  and  of  a  different  sort  for  the  southern  people,  he  as 
sumes  that  I  do  not  understand  that  my  speeches  will  be  put 
in  print  and  read  north  and  south.  1  knew  all  the  while  that  the 
speech  that  I  made  at  Chicago,  and  the  one  I  made  at  Jones- 
boro  and  the  one  at  Charleston,  would  all  be  put  in  print  and 
all  the  reading  and  intelligent  men  in  the  community  would 
see  them  and  know  all  about  my  c pinions.  And  L  have  not  sup 
posed,  and  do  not  now  suppose,  that  there  is  any  conflict  what 
ever  between  them.  But  the  Judge  will  have  it  that  if  we  do 
not  confess  that  there  is  a  sort  of  inequality  between  the  white 
and  black  races,  which  justifies  us  in  making  them  slaves,  wre 
must,  then,  insist  that  there  is  a  degree  of  equality  that  re 
quires  us  to  make  them  our  wives.  Now,  I  have  all  the  while 
taken  a  broad  distinction  in  regard  to  that  matter;  and  that 
is  all  there  is  in  these  different  speeches  which  he  arrays  here, 
and  the  entire  reading  of  either  of  the  speeches  will  show  that 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  201 

that  distinction  was  made.  Perhaps  by  taking  two  parts  of 
the  same  speech,  he  could  have  got  upas  much  of  a  conflict 
as  the  one  he  has  found.  I  have  all  the  while  maintained, 
that  in  so  far  as  it  should  be  insisted  that  there  was  an  equali 
ty  between  the  white  and  black  races  that  should  produce  a 
perfect  social  and  political  equality,  it  was  an  impossibility. 
This  you  have  seen  in  my  printed  speeches,  and  with  it  I  have 
said,  that  in  their  right  to  "life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,"  as  proclaimed  in  that  old  Declaration,  the  inferior 
races  are  our  equals.  And  these  declarations  I  have  constant 
ly  made  in  reference  to  the  abstract  moral  question,  to  con 
template  and  consider  when  we  are  legislating  about  any  new 
country  which  is  not  already  cursed  with  the  actual  presence 
of  the  evil — slavery.  I  have  never  manifested  any  impatience 
with  the  necessities  that  spring  from  the  actual  presence  of 
black  people  among  us,  and  the  actual  existence  of  slavery 
among  us  where  it  does  already  exist ;  but  I  have  insisted 
that,  in  legislating  for  new  countries,  where  it  does  not  exist, 
there  is  no  just  rule  other  than  that  of  moral  and  abstract 
right !  With  reference  to  those  new  countries,  those  maxims 
as  to  the  right  of  a  people  to  "  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuii  of 
happiness,"  were  the  just  rules  to  be  constantly  referrerFto. 
There  is  no  misunderstanding  this,  except  by  men  interested 
to  misunderstand  it.  I  take  it  that  1  have  to  address  an  in 
telligent  and  reading  community,  who  will  peruse  what  I  say, 
weigh  it,  and  then  judge  whether  I  advance  improper  or  un 
sound  views,  or  whether  I  advance  hypocritical,  and  deceptive, 
and  contrary  views  in  different  portions  of  the  country.  I  be 
lieve  myself  to  be  guilty  of  no  such  thing  as  the  latter,  though, 
of  course,  I  cannot  claim  that  I  am  entirely  free  from  all  error 
in  the  opinions  I  advance. 

The  Judge  has  also  detained  us  a  while  in  regard  to  the 
distinction  between  his  party  and  our  party.  His  he  assumes 
to  be  a  national  party — ours  a  sectional  one.  He  does  this  in 
asking  the  question  whether  this  country  has  any  interest  in 
the  maintenance  of  the  Republican  party?  He  assumes  that 
our  pMilfy  is  altogether  sectional — that  the  party  to  which  he 
adheres  is  national ;  and  the  argument  is,  that  no  party  can 
be  a  rightful  party — can  be  based  upon  rightful  principles — 
unless  it  can  announce  its  principles  everywhere.  I  presume 
that  Judge  Douglas  could  not  go  into  Russia  and  announce 

9 


202  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


the  doctrine  of  our  national  Democracy  ;  he  could  not  de 
nounce  the  doctrine  of  kings,  and  emperors,  and  monarchies, 
in  Russia;  and  it  may  be  true  of  this  country,  that  in  some 
places  we  may  not  be  able  to  proclaim  a  doctrine  as  clearly  true 
as  the  truth  of  Democracy,  because  there  is  a  section  so  directly 
opposed  to  it  that  they  will  not  tolerate  us  in  doing  so.  Is  it 
the  true  test  of  the  soundness  of  a  doctrine,  that  in  some 
places  people  won't  let  you  proclaim  it?  Is  that  the  way  to 
test  the  truth  of  any  doctrine?  Why,  I  understood  that  at 
one  time  the  people  of  Chicago  would  not  let  Judge  Douglas 
preach  a  certain  favorite  doctrine  of  his.  I  commend  to  his 
consideration  the  question,  whether  he  takes  that  as  a  test  of 
the  unsoundness  of  what  he  wanted  to  preach. 

There  is  another  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  ask  attention  for 
a  little  while  on  this  occasion.  What  has  always  been  the 
evidence  brought  forward  to  prove  that  the  Republican  party 
is  a  sectional  party  ?  The  main  one  was  that  in  the  Southern 
portion  of  the  Union  the  people  did  not  let  the  Republicans 
proclaim  their  doctrines  among  them.  That  has  been  the 
main  evidence  brought  forward — that  they  had  no  supporters, 
or  ^fcstantially  none,  in  the  slave  States.  The  South  have 
nofliiken  hold  of  our  principles  as  we  announce  them ;  nor 
does  Judge  Douglas  now  grapple  with  those  principles.  We 
have  a  Republican  State  plattorm,  laid  down  in  Springfield  in 
June  last,  stating  our  position  all  the  way  through  the  questions 
before  the  country.  We  are  now  far  advanced  in  this  canva*s. 
Judge  Douglas  and  I  have  made  perhaps  forty  speeches  apiece, 
and  we  have  now  for  the  fifth  time  met  face  to  face  in  debate, 
and  up  to  this  day  I  have  not  found  either  Judge  Douglas  or 
any  friend  of  his  taking  hold  of  the  Republican  platform  or 
laying  his  fingers  upon  anything  in  it  that  is  wrong.  I  ask 
you  all  to  recollect  that.  Judge  Douglas  turns  away  from 
the  platform  of  principles  to  the  fact  that  he  can  find  people 
somewhere  who  will  not  allow  us  to  announce  those  prin 
ciples.  If  he  had  great  confidence  that  our  principles  were 
wrong,  he  would  take  hold  of  them  and  demonstrate  them  to 
be  wrong  But  he  does  not  do  so.  The  only  evidence  he 
has  of  thtir  being  wrong  is  in  the  fact  that  there  are  people 
who  won't  allow  us  to  preach  them.  I  ask  again  is  that  the 
way  to  test  the  soundness  of  a  doctrine? 

I  ask  his  attention  also  to  the  fact  that  by  the  rule  of  na- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  203 

tionality  he  is  himself  fast  becoming  sectional.  I  ask  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  his  speeches  would  not  go  as  current" 
now  south  of  the  Ohio  river  as  they  have  formerly  gone  there. 
I  ask  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  felicitates  himself  to-day 
that  all  the  Democrats  of  the  free  States  are  agreeing  with 
him,  while  he  omits  to  tell  us  that  the  Democrats  of  any  slave 
State  agree* with  him.  Jf  he  has  not  thought  of  this,  I  com 
mend  to  his  consideration  the  evidence  of  his  own  declaration, 
on  this  day,  of  his  becoming  sectional  too.  I  see  it  rapidly 
approaching.  Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  ephemeral 
contest  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  I  see  the  day 
rapidly  approaching  when  his  pill  of  sectionalism,  which  he 
has  been  thrusting  down  the  throats  of  Republicans  for 
years  past,  will  be  crowded  down  his  own  throat. 

Now  in  regard  to  what  Judge  Douglas  said  (in  the  beginning 
of  his  speech)  about  the  Compromise  of  1850,  containing  the 
principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  although  I  have  often  pre 
sented  my  views  upon  that  subject,  yet  as  I  have  not  done  so 
in  this  canvass,  I  will,  if  you  please,  detain  you  a  little  with 
them.  I  have  always  maintained,  so  far  as  I  was  able,  that 
there  was  nothing  of  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in, the 
Compromise  of  1850  at  all — nothing  whatever.  Whers'can 
you  find  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  that  Compromise  % 
If  anywhere,  in  the  two  pieces  of  the  Compromise  organizing 
the  territories  of  New-Mexico  and  Utah.  It  was  expressly 
provided  in  these  two  acts,  that,  when  they  came  to  be  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union,  they  should  be  admitted  with  or  with 
out  slavery,  as  they  should  choose,  by  their  own  constitutions. 
Nothing  was  said  in  either  of  those  acts  as  to  what  was  to  be 
done  in  relation  to  slavery  during  the  territorial  existence  of 
those  territories,  while  Henry  Clay  constantly  made  the  decla 
ration  (Judge  Douglas  recognizing  him  as  a  leader)  that,  in 
his  opinion,  the  old  Mexican  laws  would  control  that  question 
during  the  territorial  existence,  and  that  these  old  Mexican 
laws  excluded  slavery.  How  can  that  be  used  as  a  principle 
for  declaring  that  during  the  territorial  existence  as  well  as 
at  the  time  of  framing  the  Constitution,  the  people,  if  you 
please,  might  have  slaves  if  they  wanted  them?  I  am  not 
discussing  the"  question  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong  ;  but  how 
are  the  New-Mexican  and  Utah  laws  patterns  for  the  Ne 
braska  bill?  I  maintain  that  the  organization  of  Utah  and 


204  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

New-Mexico  did  not  establish  a  general  principle  at  all.  It 
had  no  feature  of  establishing  a  general  principle.  The  acts 
to  which  I  have  referred  were  a  part  of  a  general  system  of 
Compromises.  They  did  not  lay  down  what  was  proposed  as 
a  regular  policy  for  the  territories  ;  only  an  agreement  in  this 
particular  case  to  do  in  that  way,  because  other  things  were 
done  that  were  to  be  a  compensation  for  it.  Tl^y  were  al 
lowed  to  come  in  in  that  shape,  because  in  another  way  it  was 
paid  for — considering  that  as  a  part  of  that  system  of  measures 
called  the  Compromise  of  1850,  which  finally  included  half  a 
dozen  acts.  It  included  the  admission  of  California  as  a  free 
State,  which  was  kept  out  of  the  Union  for  half  a  year  because 
it  had  formed  a  free  Constitution.  It  included  the  settlement 
of  the  boundary  of  Texas,  which  had  been  undefined  before, 
which  was  in  itself  a  slavery  question  :  for,  if  you  pushed  the 
line  farther  west,  you  made  Texas  larger,  and  made  more 
slave  territory ;  while,  if  you  drew  the  line  toward  the  east, 
you  narrowed  the  boundary  and  diminished  the  domain  of 
slavery,  and  by  so  much  increased  free  territory.  It  included 
the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
It  included  the  passage  of  a  new  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

All  these  things  were  put  together,  and  though  passed  in 
separate  acts,  were  nevertheless  in  legislation  (as  the  speeches 
at  the  time  will  show),  made  to  depend  upon  each  other. 
Each  got  votes,  with  the  understanding  that  the  other  meas 
ures  were  to  pass,  and  by  this  system  of  compromise,  in  that 
series  of  measures,  those  two  bills — the  New-Mexico  and 
Utah  bills — were  passed;  and  I  say  for  that  reason  they  could 
not  be  taken  as  models,  framed  upon  their  own  intrinsic  prin 
ciple,  for  all  future  territories.  And  I  have  the  evidence  of 
this  in  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas,  a  year  afterward,  or  more 
than  a  year  afterward,  perhaps,  when  he  first  introduced  bills 
for  the  purpose  of  framing  new  territories,  did  not  attempt  to 
follow  these  bills  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  ;  and  even  when 
he  introduced  this  Nebraska  bill,  I  think  you  will  discover 
that  he  did  not  exactly  follow  them.  J»ut  I  do  not  wish  to 
dwell  at  great  length  upon  this  branch  of  the  discussion.  My 
own  opinion  is,  that  a  thorough  investigation  will  show  most 
plainly  that  the  New-Mexico  and  Utah  bills  were  part  of  a 
system  of  compromise,  and  not  designed  as  patterns  for  future 
territorial  legislation  ;  y,nd  that  this  Nebraska  bill  did  not  fol 
low  them  as  a  pattern  at  all. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  205 

The  Judge  tells,  in  proceeding,  that  he  is  opposed  to  mak 
ing  any  odious  distinctions  between  free  and  slave  States.  I 
am  altogether  unaware  that  the  Republicans  are  in  favor  of 
making  any  odious  distinctions  between  the  free  and  slave 
States.  But  there  still  is  a  difference,  I  think,  between  Judge 
Douglas  and  the  Republicans  in  this.  I  suppose  that  the  real 
difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends,  and  the  Re 
publicans  on  the  contrary,  is,  that  the  Judge  is  not  in  favor 
of  making  any  difference  between  slavery  and  liberty — that  he 
is  in  favor  of  eradicating,  of  pressing  out  of  view,  the  ques 
tions  of  preference  in  this  country  for  free  or  slave  institu 
tions  ;  and  consequently  every  sentiment  he  utters  discards  the 
idea  that  there  is  any  wrong  in  slavery.  Everything  that 
emanates  from  him  or  his  coadjutors  in  their  course  of  policy, 
carefully  excludes  the  thought  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in 
slavery.  All  their  arguments,  if  you  will  consider  them,  will 
be  seen  to  exclude  the  thought  that  there  is  anything  what 
ever  wrong  in  slavery.  If  you  will  take  the  Judge's  speeches, 
and  select  the  short  and  pointed  sentences  expressed  by  him — 
as  his  declaration  that  he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted 
up  or  down"— -you  will  see  at  once  that  this  is  perfectly  logi 
cal,  if  you  do  not  admit  that  slavery  is  wrong.  Jf  you  do  ad 
mit  that  it  is  wrong,  Judge  Douglas  cannot  logically  say  he 
don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is  voted  up  or  voted  down. 
Judge  Douglas  declares  that  if  any  community  want  slavery 
they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  He  can  say  that  logically,  if  he 
says  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery  ;  but  if  you  admit  that 
there  is  a  wrong  in  it,  he  cannot  logically  say  that  anybody 
has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  He  insists  that,  upon  the  score  of 
equality,  the  owners  of  slaves  and  owners  of  property — of 
horses  and  every  other  sort  of  property — should  be  alike  and 
hold  them  alike  in  a  new  territory.  That  is  perfectly  logical, 
if  the  two  species  of  property  are  alike  and  are  equally  found 
ed  in  right.  But  if  you  admit  that  one  of  them  is  wrong,  you 
cannot  institute  any  equality  between  right  and  wrong.  Arid 
from  this  difference  of  sentiment — the  belief  on  the  part  of  one 
that  the  institution  is  wrong,  and  a  policy  springing  from  that 
belief  which  looks  to  the  arrest  of  the  enlargement  of  that 
wrong  ;  and  this  other  sentiment,  that  it  is  no  wrong,  and  a 
policy  sprung  from  that  sentiment  which  will  tolerate  no  idea 
of  preventing  that  wrong  from  growing  larger,  and  looks  to 


206  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

there  never  being  an  end  of  it  through  all  the  existence  of 
things,  arises  the  real  difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and 
his  friends  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Republicans  on  the  other, 
Now,  I  confess  myself  as  belonging  to  that  class  in  the  coun 
try  who  contemplate  slavery  as  a  moral,  social,  and  political 
evil,  having  due  regard  for  its  actual  existence  among  us, 
and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way, 
and  to  all  the  constitutional  obligations  which  have  been 
thrown  about  it ;  but,  nevertheless,  desire  a  policy  that  looks 
to  the  prevention  of  it  as  a  wrong,  and  looks  hopefully  to  the 
time  when  as  a  wrong  it  may  come  to  an  end. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again,  for,  I  believe,  the  fifth  time,  it 
not  the  seventh,  in  my  presence,  reiterated  his  charge  of  a 
conspiracy  or  combination  between  tho  National  Democrats 
and  Republicans.  What  evidence  Judge  Douglas  has  upon 
this  subject,  I  kr  ow  not,  inasmuch  as  he  never  favors  us  with 
any.  1  have  Kiid  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  I  do  not  choose 
to  suppress  it  wow,  that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  division  in 
the  Judge's  party.  He  got  it  up  himself.  It  was  all  his  and 
their  work.  He  had,  I  think,  a  great  deal  more  to  do  with 
the  steps  that  led  to  the  Lecompton  constitution  than  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  had  ;  though  at  last,  when  they  reached  it,  they  quar- 
•  reled  over  it,  and  their  friends  divided  upon  it.  I  am  very 
free  to  confess  to  Judge  Douglas  that  I  have  no  objection  to 
the  division  ;  but  I  defy  the  Judge  to  show  any  evidence  that 
I  have  in  any  way  promoted  that  division,  unless  he  insists  on 
being  a  witness  himself,  in  merely  saying  so.  I  can  give  all 
fair  friends  of  Judge  Douglas  here  to  understand  exactly  tho 
view  that  Republicans  take  in  regard  to  that  division.  Don't 
you  remember  how,  two  years  ago,  the  opponents  of  the  Dem 
ocratic  party  were  divided  between  Fremont  and  Fillniore? 
I  gue.*>s  you  do.  Any  Democrat  who  remembers  that  division, 
will  remember  also,  that  he  was  at  the  time  veiy  glad  of  it, 
and  then  he  will  be  able  to  see  all  there  is  between  the  Na 
tional  Democrats  and  the  Republicans.  What  we  now  think 
of  the  two  divisions  of  Democrats,  you  then  thought  of  the 
Fremont  and  Fillmore  divisions.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

But,  if  the  Judge  continues  to  put  forward  the  declaration 
that  there  is  an  unholy  and  unnatural  alliance  between  the 
Republican  and  the  National  Democrats,  I  now  want  to  enter 
my  protest  against  receiving  him  as  an  entirely  competent  wit- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  207 

ness  upon  that  subject.  I  want  to  call  to  the  Judge's  atten 
tion  an  attack  he  made  upon  me,  in  the  first  one  of  these 
debates,  at  Ottawa,  on  the  21st  of  August.  In  order  to  fix 
extreme  Abolitionism  upon  me,  Judge  Douglas  read  a  set  of 
resolutions,  which  he  declared  had  been  passed  by  a  Kepubli- 
can  State  Convention,  in  October,  1854,  at  Springfield,  Illi 
nois,  and  he  declared  I  had  taken  part  in  that  Convention.  It 
turned  out  that,  although  a  few  men  calling  themselves  an 
anti-Nebraska  State  Convention,  had  sat  at  Springfield  about 
that  time,  yet  neither  did  I  take  any  part  in  it,  nor  did  it  pass 
the  resolutions,  or  any  such  resolutions,  as  Judge  Douglas 
read.  So  apparent  had  it  become  that  the  resolutions  which 
he  read  had  not  been  passed  at  Springfield  at  all,  nor  by  a  State 
Convention  in  which  I  had  taken  part,  that  seven  days  after 
ward,  at  Freeport,  Judge  Douglas  declared  that  he  had  been 
misled  by  Charles  H.  Lanphier,  editor  of  the  State  Register, 
and  Thomas  L.  Harris,  member  of  Congress  in  that  District, 
and  he  promised  in  that  speech  that  when  he  went  to  Spring 
field  he  would  investigate  the  matter.  Since  then  Judge 
Douglas  has  been  to  Springfield,  and  I  presume  has  made  the 
investigation  ;  but  a  month  has  passed  since  he  has  been  there, 
and,  so  far  as  I  know,  he  has  made  no  report  of  the  result  of 
his  investigation.  I  have  waited,  as  I  think,  sufficient  time 
for  the  report  of  that  investigation,  and  I  have  some  curiosity 
to  see  and  hear  it.  A  fraud — an  absolute  forgery  was  com 
mitted,  and  the  perpetration  of  it  was  traced  to  the  three — 
Lanphier,  Harris,  and  Douglas.  Whether  it  can  be  narrowed 
in  any  way  so  as  to  exonerate  any  one  of  them,  is  what  Judge 
Douglas's  report  would  probably  show. 

It  is  true  that  the  set  of  resolutions  read  by  Judge  Douglas 
were  published  in  the  Illinois  State  Register,  on  the  16th  of 
October,  1854,  as  being  the  resolutions  of  an  anti-Nebraska 
Convention,  which  had  sat  in  that  same  month  of  October,  at 
Springfield.  But  it  is  also  true,  that  the  publication  in  the 
Register  was  a  forgery  then,  and  the  question  is  still  behind, 
which  of  the  three,  if  not  all  of  them,  committed  that  forgery? 
The  idea  that  it  was  done  by  mistake,  is  absurd.  The  Article 
in  the  II  inois  State  Register  contains  part  of  the  real  p  oceed- 
ings  of  that  Springfield  Convention,  showing  that  tin  writer 
of  the  article  had  the  real  proceedings  before  him,  and  pur 
posely  threw  out  the  genuine  resolutions  passed  by  the  Con- 


208  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

vention,  and  fraudulently  substituted  the  others.  Lanphier 
then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of  the  Register,  so  there  seems  to 
be  but  little  room  for  his  escape.  But  then  it  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind  that  Lanphier  had  less  interest  in  the  object  of  that 
forgery  than  either  of  the  other  two.  The  main  object  of  that 
forgery,  at  that  time,  was  to  beat  Yates  and  elect  Harris  to 
Congress,  and  that  object  was  known  to  be  exceedingly  dear 
to  Judge  Douglas  at  that  time.  Harris  and  Douglas  were 
both  in  Spnngtield  when  the  Convention  was  in  session,  and 
although  they  both  left  before  the  fraud  appeared  in  the  Reg 
ister,  subsequent  events  show  that  they  have  both  had  their 
eyes  fixed  upon  that  Convention. 

The  fraud  having  heen  apparently  successful  upon  the  occa 
sion,  both  Harris  and  Douglas  have  more  than  once  since  then 
been  attempting  to  put  it  to  new  uses.  As  the  fisherman's 
wife,  whose  drowned  husband  was  brought  home  with  his  body 
full  of  eels,  said  when  she  was  asked,  '*  What  was  to  be  done 
with  him  ?"  "  Take  the  eels  out  and  set  him  again ;"  so  Harris 
and  Douglas  have  shown  a  disposition  to  take  the  eels  out  of 
that  stale  fraud  by  which  they  gained  Harris's  election,  and 
set  the  fraud  again  more  than  once.  On  the  9th  of  July, 
185G,  Douglas  attempted  a  repetition  of  it  upon  Trurnbull  on 
the  tioor  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  will  appear 
from  the  appendix  of  the  Congressional  Globe  of  that  dale. 

On  the  9th  of  August,  Harris  attempted  it  again  upon  Nor 
ton  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  will  appear  by  the 
same  documents — the  appendix  to  the  Congressional  Globe  of 
that  date.  On  the  21st  of  August  last,  all  three — Lanphier, 
Douglas,  and  Hacris — reattempted  it  upon  me  at  Ottawa.  It 
has  been  clung  to  and  played  out  again  and  again  as  an  ex 
ceedingly  high  trump  by  this  blessed  trio.  And  now  that  it 
has  been  discovered  publicly  to  be  a  fraud,  we  iind  that  J.udge 
Douglas  manifests  no  surprise  at  it  at  all.  He  makes  no  com 
plaint  of  Lanphier,  who  must  have  known  it  to  be  a  fraud 
from  the  beginning.  He,  Lanphier,  and  Harris,  are  jnst  as 
cozy  now,  and  just  as  active  in  the  concoction  of  new  schemes 
as  they  were  before  the  general  discovery  of  this  fraud.  Now 
all  this  is  very  natural  if  they  are  all  alike  guilty  in  that 
fraud,  and  it  is  very  unnatural  if  any  one  of  them  is  innocent. 
Lanphier  perhaps  insists  that  the  rule  of  honor  among  thieves 
does  not  quite  require  him  to  take  all  upon  himself,  and  con- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  209 

sequently  my  friend  Judge  Douglas  finds  it  difficult  to  make  a 
satisfactory  report  upon  his  investigation.  But  meanwhile 
the  three  are  agreed  that  each  is  "  a  mo*t  honorable  man.*' 

Judge  Douglas  requires  an  endorsement  of  his  truth  and 
honor  by  a  re-election  to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  he 
makes  and  reports  against  me  and  against  Judge  Trumbull, 
day  after  day,  charges  which  we  know  to  be  utterly  untrue, 
without  for  a  moment  seeming  to  think  that  this  one  unex 
plained  fraud,  which  he  promised  to  investigate,  will  be  the 
least  drawback  to  his  claim  to  belief.  Harris  ditto.  He  asks 
a  re-election  to  the  lower  House  of  Congress  without  seeming 
to  rememher  at  all  that  he  is  involved  in  this  dishonorable 
fraud  !  The  Illinois  State  Register,  edited  by  Lanphier,  then, 
as  now,  the  central  organ  of  both  Harris  and  Douglas,  con 
tinues  to  din  the  public  ear  with  this  assertion  without  seeming 
to  suspect  that  these  assertions  are  at  all  lacking  in  title  to  belief. 

After  all,  the  question  still  recurs  upon  us,  how  did  that 
fraud  originally  get  into  the  State  Register  1  Lanphier  then,  as 
now,  was  the  editor  of  that  paper.  Lanphier  knows.  Lan 
phier  cannot  be  ignorant  of  how  and  by  whom  it  was  origi 
nally  concocted.  Can  he  be  induced  to  tell,  or  if  he  has  told, 
can  Judge  Douglas  be  induced  to  tell  how  it  originally  was 
concocted?  It  may  be  true  that  Lanphier  insists  that  the 
two  men  for  whose  benefit  it  was  originally  devised,  shall  at 
least  bear  their  share  of  it!  How  that  is,  I  do  not  know, 
and  while  it  remains  unexplained,  I  hope  to  be  pardoned  if  I 
insist  that  the  mere  fact  of  Judge  Douglas  making  charges 
against  Trumbull  and  myself  is  not  quite  sufficient  evidence  to 
establish  them  ! 

While  we  were  at  Freeport,  in  one  of  these  joint  discus 
sions,  I  answered  certain  interrogatories  which  Judge  Douglas 
had  propounded  to  me,  and  there  in  turn  propounded  some  to 
him,  which  he  in  a  sort  of  way  answered.  The  third  one  of 
these  interrogatories  I  have  with  me,  and  wish  now  to  make 
some  comments  upon  it.  It  was  in  these  words  :  "  If  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that  the 
States  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in 
favor  of  acquiescing  in,  adhering  to,  and  following  such  de 
cision,  as  a  rule  of  political  action  -'" 

To  this  interrogatory  Judge  Douglas  made  no  answer,  in 
any  just  sense  of  the  word.  He  contented  himself  with 
sneering  at  the  thought  that  it  was  possible  for  the  Supreme 


210  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES     OF 

Court  ever  to  make  such  a  decision.  He  sneered  at  me  for 
propaunding  the  interrogatory.  I  had  not  propounded  it 
without  some  reflection,  and  I  wish  now  to  address  to  this 
audience  tome  remarks  upon  it. 

In  the  second  clause  of  the  sixth  article,  I  believe  it  is,  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  we  find  the  following 
language :  "  This  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  and  all 
treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ;  and 
the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything 
in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary,  not 
withstanding." 

The  essence  of  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  compressed  into  the 
sentence  which  I  will  now  read  :  '•  Now,  as  we  have  already 
said  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  opinion,  upon  a  different  point, 
the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution."  I  repeat  it,  "  The  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Con- 
atitntionj"  What  is  it  to  be  "  affinned  "  in  the  Constitution? 
Made  firm  in  the  Constitution — so  made  that  it  cannot  be 
separated  from  the  Constitution  without  breaking  the  Consti 
tution — durable  as  the  Constitution,  and  part  of  the  Consti 
tution.  Now,  remembering  the  provision  of  the  Constitution 
which  I  have  read,  affirming  that  that  instrument  is  the  su 
preme  law  of  the  land  ;  that  the  judges  of  every  State  shall 
be  bound  by  it,  any  law  or  constitution  of  any  State  to  the 
contrary,  notwithstanding  ;  that  the  right  of  property  in  a 
slave  is  affirmed  in  that  Constitution,  is  made,  formed  into, 
and  cannot  be  separated  from  it  without  breaking  it ;  durable 
as  the  instrument;  part  of  the  instrument; — what  follows  as 
a  short  and  even  syllogistic  argument  from  it?  I  think  it 
follows,  and  I  submit  to  the  consideration  of  men  capable  of 
arguing,  whether  as  I  state  it,  in  syllogistic  form,  the  argu 
ment  has  any  fiault  in  it? 

Nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  de 
stroy  a  right  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Therefore,  nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State 
can  destroy  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  -        211 


I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in  that  argument ; 
assuming  the  truth  of  the  premises,  the  conclusion,  so  far  as 
I  have  capacity  at  all  to  understand  it,  follows  inevitably. 
There  is  a  fault  in  it  as  I  think,  but  the  fault  is  not  in  the 
reasoning  ;  but  the  falsehood  in  fact  is  a  fault  of  the  premises. 
I  believe  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  not  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  and  Judge  Douglas 
thinks  it  is.  I  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  advo 
cates  of  that  decision  may  search  in  vain  for  the  place  in  the 
Constitution  where  the  right  of  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  ex 
pressly  affirmed.  I  say,  therefore,  that  I  think  one  of  the 
premises  is  not  true  in  fact.  But  it  is  true  with  Judge  Doug 
las.  It  is  true  with  the  Supreme  Court  who  pronounced  it. 
They  are  estopped  from  denying  it.  and  being  estopped  from 
denying  it,  the  conclusion  follows  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  being  the  supreme  law,  no  constitution  or  law 
can  interfere  with  it.  It  being  affirmed  in  the  decision  that 
the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  the  conclusion  inevitably  follows 
that  no  State  law  or  constitution  can  destroy  that  right.  I 
then  say  to  Judge  Douglas  and  to  all  others,  that  I  think  it 
will  take  a  better  answer  than  a  sneer  to  show  that  those  who 
have  said  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  are  not  prepared 
to  show  that  no  constitution  or  law  can  destroy  that  right.  I 
say  I  believe  it  will  take  a  far  better  argument  than  a  mere 
sneer  to  show  to  the  minds  of  intelligent  men  that  whoever 
has  so  said,  is  not  prepared,  whenever  public  sentiment  is  so 
far  advanced  as  to  justify  it,  to  say  the  other. 

This  is  but  an  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  one  very  humble 
man  ;  but  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  as  it 
is,  never  would  have  been  made  in  its  present  form  if  the 
party  that  made  it  had  not  been  sustained  previously  by  the 
elections.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  the  new  Dre  1  Scott  decis 
ion,  deciding  against  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  States  to 
exclude  slavery,  will  never  be  made,  if  that  party  is  not  sus 
tained  by  the  elections.  I  believe,  further,  that  it  is  just  as 
sure  to  be  made  as  to-morrow  is  to  come,  if  that  party  shall  be 
sustained.  I  have  said,  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  1  repeat 
it  now,  that  the  course  of  argument  that  Judge  Douglas  makes 
use  of  upon  this  subject  (I  charge  not  his  motives  in  this),  is 


212  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

preparing  the  public  mind  for  that  new  Dred  Scott  decision. 
1  have  asked  him  again  to  point  out  to  me  the  reasons  for  his 
first  adherence  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  as  it  is.  I  have 
turned  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  General  Jackson  differed 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  political  obligation  of  a  Supreme 
Court  decision.  I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Jefferson  differed  with  him  in  regard  to  the  political  obligation 
of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  Jefferson  said,  that  "  Judges 
are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more  so."  And  he  said, 
substantially,  that  "  whenever  a  free  people  should  give  up  in 
absolute  submission  to  any  department  of  government,  retain 
ing  for  themselves  no  appeal  from  it,  their  liberties  are  gone." 
I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Cincinnati  plat 
form,  upon  which  he  says  he  stands,  disregards  a  time-honored 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  denying  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  establish  a  National  Bank.  I  have  asked  his  attention 
to  the  fact  that  he  himself  was  one  of  the  most  active  instru 
ments  at  one  time  in  breaking  down  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  because  it  had  made  a  decision  distasteful  to 
him — a  struggle  ending  in  the  remarkable  circumstance  of  his 
sitting  down  as  one  of  the  new  Judges  who  were  to  overslaugh 
that  decision — getting  his  title  of  Judge  in  that  very  way. 

So  far  in  this  controversy  I  can  get  no  answer  at  all  from 
Judge  Douglas  upon  these  subjects.  Not  one  can  I  get  from 
him,  except  that  he  swells  himself  up  and  says,  "All  of  us 
who  stand  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  the 
friends  of  the  Constitution  ;  all  you  fellows  that  dare  question 
it  in  any  way  are  the  enemies  of  the  Constitution."  Now,  in 
this  very  devoted  adherence  to  this  decision,  in  opposition  to 
all  the  great  political  leaders  whom  he  has  recognized  as 
leaders — in  opposition  to  his  former  self  and  history,  there  is 
something  very  marked.  And  the  manner  in  which  he  ad 
heres  to  it — not  as  being  right  upon  the  merits,  as  he  con 
ceives  (because  he  did  not  discuss  that  at  all),  but  as  being 
absolutely  obligatory  upon  every  one,  simply  because  of 
the  source  whence  it  comes — as  that  which  no  man  can 
gainsay,  whatever  it  may  be — this  is  another  marked  feature 
of  his  adherence  to  that  decision.  It  marks  it  in  this  respect, 
that  it  commits  him  to  the  next  decision,  whenever  it  comes, 
as  being  as  obligatory  as  this  one,  since  he  docs  not  investigate 
it,  and  won't  inquire  whether  this  opinion  is  right  or  wrong. 


. 
ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  213 

So  he  takes  the  next  one  without  inquiring  whether  it  is  right 
or  wrong.  He  teaches  men  this  doctrine,  and  in  doing  so 
prepares  the  public  mind  to  take  the  next  decision  when  it 
comes,  without  any  inquiry.  In  this  I  think  I  argue  fairly 
(without  questioning  motives  at  all),  that  Judge  Douglas  is 
most  ingeniously  and  powerfully  preparing  the  public  mind  to 
take  that  decision  when  it  comes  ;  and  not  only  so.  but  he  is 
doing  it  in  various  other  ways.  In  these  general  maxims  about 
liberty — in  his  assertions  that  he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery 
is  voted  up  or  down ;"  that  "  whoever  wants  slavery  has  a 
right  to  have  it ;"  that  "  upon  principles  of  equality  it  should 
be  allowed  to  go  everywhere  ;"  that  "  there  is  no  inconsistency 
between  free  and  slave  institutions."  In  this,  he  is  also  pre 
paring  (whether  purposely  or  not)  the  way  for  making  the  in 
stitution  of  slavery  national !  I  repeat  again,  for  I  wish  no 
misunderstanding,  that  I  do  not  charge  that  he  means  it  so  ; 
but  I  call  your  minds  to  inquire,  if  you  were  going  to  get  the 
best  instrument  you  could,  and  then  set  it  to  work  in  the  most 
ingenious  way,  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  this  movement, 
operating  in  the  free  States,  where  there  is  now  an  abhorrence 
of  the  institution  of  slavery,  could  you  find  an  instrument  so 
capable  of  doing  it  as  Judge  Douglas  ?  or  one  employed  in  so 
apt  a  way  to  do  it  ? 

I  have  said  once  before,  and  I  will  repeat  it  now,  that  Mr. 
Clay,  when  he  was  once  answering  an  objection  to  the  Colo 
nization  Society,  that  it  had  a  tendency  to  the  ultimate  eman 
cipation  of  the  slaves,  said  that  "  those  who  would  repress  all 
tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation  must  do  more 
than  put  down  the  benevolent  efforts  of  the  Colonization  So 
ciety — they  must  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  indepen 
dence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual  joyous 
return — they  must  blot  out  the  moral  lights  around  us — they 
must  penetrate  the  human  soul,  and  eradicate  the  light  of  rea 
son  and  the  love  of  liberty  !"  And  I  do  think — I  repeat, 
though  I  said  it  on  a  former  occasion — that  Judge  Douglas, 
and  whoever  like  him  teaches  that  the  negro  has  no  share, 
humble  though  it  may  be,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
is  "  going  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  independence,  and, 
so  far  as  in  him  lies,  muzzling  the  cannon  that  thunders  its 
annual  joyous  return  ;"  that  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral  lights 
around  us,  when  he  contends  that  whoever  wants  slaves  has 


214  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

a  right  to  hold  them  ;  that  he  is  penetrating,  so  far  as  lies  in 
his  power,  the  human  soul,  ana  eradicating  the  light  of  rea 
son  and  the  love  of  liberty,  when  he  is  in  every  possible  way 
preparing  the  public  mind,  by  his  vast  influence,  for  making 
the  institution  of  slavery  perpetual  and  national. 

There  is,  my  friends,  only  one  other  point  to  which  I  will 
call  your  attention  for  the  remaining  time  that  I  have  left  me, 
and,  perhaps,  I  shall  not  occupy  the  entire  time  that  I  have, 
as  that  one  point  may  not  take  me  clear  through  it. 

Among  the  interrogatories  that  Judge  Douglas  propounded  to 
me  at  Freeport,  there  was  one  in  about  this  language  :  "Are 
you  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  further  territory  to  the 
United  States,  unless  slavery  shall  first  be  prohibited  therein  T* 
I  answered  as  I  thought,  in  this  way,  that  I  am  not  generally 
opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  additional  territory,  and  that  I 
would  support  a  proposition  for  the  acquisition  of  additional 
territory,  according  as  my  supporting  it  was  or  was  not  calcu 
lated  to  aggravate  this  slavery  question  among  us.  I  then 
proposed  to  Judge  Douglas  another  interrogatory,  which  was 
correlative  to  that :  "  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  addi 
tional  territory  in  disregard  of  how  it  may  affect  us  upon  the 
slavery  question?"  Judge  Douglas  answered,  that  is,  in  his 
own  way  he  answered  it.  I  believe  that,  although  he  took  a 
great  many  words  to  answer  it,  it  was  a  little  more  fully  an 
swered  than  any  other.  The  substance  of  his  answer  was, 
that  this  country  would  continue  to  expand — that  it  woul  I 
need  additional  territory — th.it  it  was  as 'absurd  to  suppose 
that  we  could  continue  upon  our  present  territory,  enlarging 
in  population  as  we  are,  as  it  would  be  to  hoop  a  boy  twelve 
years  of  age,  and  expect  him  to  grow  to  man's  size  without 
bursting  the  hoops.  I  believe  it  was  something  like  that. 
Consequently  he  was  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  further 
territory,  as  fast  as  we  might  need  it,  in  disregard  of  how  it 
might  affect  the  slavery  question.  I  do  not  say  this  as  giving 
his  exact  language,  but  he  said  so  substantially,  and  he  would 
leave  the  question  of  slavery  where  the  territory  was  ac 
quired,  to  be  settled  by  the  people  of  the  acquired  territory. 
[k<  That's  the  doctrine."]  May  be  it  is  ;  let  us  consider  that 
for  a  while.  This  will  probably,  in  the  run  of  things,  become 
one  of  the  concrete  manifestations  of  this  slav<Tv  question. 
It  Judge  Douglas's  policy  upon  this  question  succeeds  and  gets 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  215 


fairly  settled  down,  until  all  opposition  is  crushed  out,  the  next 
thing  will  be  a  grab  for  the  territory  of  poor  Mexico,  and  an 
invasion  of  the  rich  lands  of  South  America,  then  the  adjoin 
ing  islands  will  follow,  each  one  of  which  promises  additional 
slave  fields.  And  this  question  is  to  be  left  to  the  people  of 
those  countries  for  settlement.  When  we  shall  get  Mexico,  I 
don't  know  whether  the  Judge  will  be  in  favor  of  the  Mexican 
people  that  we  get  with  it  settling  that  question  for  themselves 
and  all  others ;  because  we  know  the  Judge  has  a  great  horror 
for  mongrels,  and  I  understand  that  the  people  of  Mexico  are 
most  decidedly  a  race  of  mongrels.  I  understand  that  there 
is  not  more  than  one  person  there  out  of  eight  who  is  pure 
white,  and  I  suppose  from  the  Judge's  previous  declaration 
that  when  we  get  Mexico  or  any  considerable  portion  of  it, 
that  he  will  be  in  favor  of  these  mongrels  settling  the  question, 
which  would  bring  him  somewhat  into  collision  with  his  hor 
ror  of  an  inferior  race. 

It  is  to  remembered,  though,  that  this  power  of  acquiring 
additional  territory  is  a  power  confided  to  the  President  and 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  power  not  under  the  con 
trol  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  any  further  than  they, 
the  President  and  the  Senate,  can  be  considered  representa 
tives  of  the  people.  Let  me  illustrate  that  by  a  case  we  have 
in  our  history.  When  we  acquired  the  territory  from  Mexico 
in  the  Mexican  war,  the  House  of  Representatives,  composed 
of  the  immediate  representatives  of  the  people,  all  the  time  in 
sisted  that  the  territory  thus  to  be  acquired  should  be  brought 
in  upon  condition  that  slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited 
therein,  upon  the  terms  and  in  the  language  that  slavery  had 
been  prohibited  from  coming  into  this  country.  That  was  in 
sisted  upon  constantly,  and  never  failed  to  call  forth  an  assur 
ance  that  any  territory  thus  acquired  should  have  that  prohi 
bition  in  it,  so  far  as  the  House  of  Representatives  was  con 
cerned.  But  at  last  the  President  and  the  Senate  acquired  the 
territory  without  asking  the  House  of  Representatives  any 
thing  about  it,  and  took  it  without  that  prohibition.  They 
have  the  power  of  acquiring  territory  without  the  immediate 
representatives  of  the  people  being  called  upon  to  say  any 
thing  about  it,  and  thus  furnishing  a  very  apt  and  powerful 
means  of  bringing  new  territory  into  the  Union,  and  when  it 
is  once  brought  into  the  country,  involving  us  anew  in  this 


216  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

slavery  agitation.  It  is,  therefore,  as  I  think,  a  very  import 
ant  question  for  the  consideration  of  the  American  people, 
whether  the  policy  of  bringing  in  additional  territory,  without 
considering  at  all  how  it  will  operate  upon  the  safety  of  the 
Union,  in  reference  to  this  one  great  disturbing  element  in  our 
national  politics,  shall  be  adopted  as  the  policy  of  the  country. 
You  will  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  to  be  acquired,  according  to 
the  Judge's  view,  as  fast  as  it  is  needed,  and  the  indefinite 
part  of  this  proposition  is  that  we  have  only  Judge  Douglas 
and  his  class  of  men  to  decide  how  fast  it  is  needed.  We 
have  no  clear  and  certain  way  of  determining  or  demonstrating 
how  fast  territory  is  needed  by  the  necessities  of  the  country. 
Whoever  wants  to  go  out  filibustering,  then,  thinks  that  more 
territory  is  needed.  Whoever  wants  wider  slave  fields,  feels 
sure  that  some  additional  territory  is  needed  as  slave  territory. 
Then  it  is  as  easy  to  show  the  necessity  of  additional  slave 
territory  as  it  is  to  assert  anything  that  is  incapable  of  absolute 
demonstration.  Whatever  motive  a  man  or  a  set  of  men  may 
have  for  making  annexation  of  property  or  territory,  it  is  very 
to  easy  assert,  but  much  less  to  disprove,  that  it  is  necessary 
for  the  wants  of  the  country. 

And  now  it  only  remains  for  me  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  a 
very  grave  question  for  the  people  of  this  Union  to  consider 
whether,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  slavery  question  has  been 
the  only  one  that  has  ever  endangered  our  Republican  institu 
tions — the  only  one  that  has  ever  threatened  or  menaced  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union — that  has  ever  disturbed  us  in  such  a, 
way  as  to  make  us  fear  for  the  perpetuity  of  our  liberty — in 
view  of  these  facts,  I  think  it  is  an  exceedingly  interesting  and 
important  question  for  this  people  to  consider,  whether  we 
shall  engage  in  the  policy  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  dis 
carding  altogether  from  our  consideration,  while  obtaining 
new  territory,  the  question  how  it  may  affect  us  in  regard  to 
this  the  only  endangering  element  to  our  liberties  and  national 
greatness.  The  Judge's  view  has  been  expressed.  I,  in  my 
answer  to  his  question,  have  expressed  mine.  I  think  it  will 
become  an  important  and  practical  question.  Our  views  are 
before  the  public.  I  am  willing  and  anxious  that  they  should 
consider  them  fully — that  they  should  turn  it  about  and  con 
sider  the  importance  of  the  question,  and  arrive  at.  a  just  con 
clusion  as  to  whether  it  is  or  it  is  not  wise  in  the  people  of 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  217 

this  Union,  in  the  acquisition  of  new  territory,  to  consider 
whether  it  will  add  to  the  disturbance  that  is  existing  among 
us — whether  it  will  add  to  the  one  only  danger  that  has  ever 
threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  or  of  our  own  liberties. 
I  think  it  is  extremely  important  that  they  shall  decide,  and 
rightly  decide,  that  question  before  entering  upon  that  policy. 
And  now,  my  friends,  having  said  the  little  I  wish  to  say 
upon  this  head,  whether  I  have  occupied  the  whole  of  the 
remnant  of  my  time  or  not,  I  believe  I  could  not  enter  upon 
any  new  topics  so  as  to  treat  it  fully  without  transcending  my 
time,  which  I  would  not  for  a  moment  think  of  doing.  I  give 
way  to  Judge  Douglas. 


ME.   LINCOLN'S    S  P  E_E  0  H, 

AT  QUINCY,  ILL.,  October  13,  1858. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  have  had  no  immediate  con 
ference  with  Judge  Douglas,  but  I  will  venture  to  say  that  he 
and  I  will  perfectly  agree  that  your  entire  silence,  both  when 
I  speak  and  when  he  speaks,  will  be  most  agreeable  to  us. 

In  the  month  of  May,  1856,  rtie  elements  of  the  State  of 
Illinois,  which  have  since  been  consolidated  into  the  Republi 
can  party,  assembled  together  in  a  State  Convention  atBloom- 
ington.  They  adopted  at  that  time,  what,  in  political  lan 
guage,  is  called  a  platform.  In  June  of  the  same  year,  the 
elements  of  the  Republican  party  in  the  nation  assembled  to 
gether  in  a  National  Convention  at  Philadelphia.  They 
adopted  what  is  called  the  National  Platform.  In  June,  1858 
— the  present  year — the  Republicans  of  Illinois  re-assembled 
at  Springfield,  in  State  Convention,  and  adopted  again  their 
platform,  as  I  suppose,  not  differing  in  any  essential  particu 
lar  from  either  of  the  former  ones,  but  perhaps  adding  some 
thing  in  relation  to  the  new  developments  of  political  progress 
in  the  country. 

The  Convention  that  assembled  in  June  last  did  me  the 
honor,  if  it  be 'one,  and  I  esteem  it  such,  to  nominate  me  as 
their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate.  I  have  sup- 

10 


218  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

posed  that,  in  entering  upon  this  canvas?,  I  stood  generally 
upon  these  platforms.  We  are  now  met  together  on  the  13th 
of  October  of  the  Fame  year,  only  four  months  from  the  adop 
tion  of  the  last  platform,  and  I  am  unaware  that  in  this  can 
vass,  from  the  beginning  until  to-day,  any  one  of  our  adver 
saries  has  taken  hold  of  our  platforms,  or  laid  his  finger  upon 
anything  that  he  calls  wrong  in  them. 

In  the  very  first  one  of  these  joint  discussions  between  Sen 
ator  Douglas  and  myself,  Senator  Douglas,  without  alluding 
at  all  to  these  platforms,  or  any  one  of  them,  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  attempted  to  hold  me  responsible  for  a  set  of  resolu 
tions  passed  long  before  the  meeting  of  either  one  of  these 
Conventions  of  which  I  have  spoken-  And  as  a  ground  for 
holding  me  responsible  for  these  resolutions,  he  assumed  that 
they  had  been  passed  at  a  State  Convention  of  the  Republican 
party,  and  that  I  took  part  in  that  Convention.  It  was  dis 
covered  afterward  that  this  was  erroneous,  that  the  resolutions 
which  he  endeavored  to  hold  me  responsible  for,  had  not  been 
passed  by  any  State  Convention  anywhere,  had  not  been 
passed  at  Springfield,  where  he  supposed  they  had,  or  as 
sumed  that  they  had,  and  that  they  had  been  passed  in  no 
Convention  in  which  I  had  taken  part.  The  Judge,  never 
theless,  was  not  willing  to  give  up  the  point  that  he  was  en 
deavoring  to  make  upon  me,  and  he  therefore  thought  to  still 
hold  me  to  the  point  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  make,  by 
showing  that  .the  resolutions  that  he  read,  had  been  passed  at 
a  local  Convention  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State,  although 
it  was  not  a  local  Convention  that  embraced  my  residence  at 
all,  nor  one  that  reached,  as  I  suppose,  nearer  than  one  hun 
dred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  miles  of  where  I  was  when  it 
met,  nor  one  in  which  I  took  any  part  at  all.  He  also  intro 
duced  other  resolutions,  passed  at  other  meetings,  and  by  com 
bining  the  whole,  although  they  were  all  antecedent  to  the 
two  State  Conventions,  and  the  one  National  Convention  I 
have  mentioned,  still  he  insisted  and  now  insists,  as  I  under 
stand,  that  I  am  in  some  way  responsible  for  them. 

At  Jonesboro,  on  our  third  meeting,  I  insisted  to  the  Judge 
that  I  was  in  no  way  rightfully  hold  responsible  for  the  pro 
ceedings  of  this  local  meeting  or  Convention,  in  which  I  had 
taken  no  part,  and  in  which  I  was  in  no  way  embraced  ;  but 
I  insisted  to  him  that  if  he  thought  I  was  responsible  for  every 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  219 

man  or  every  set  of  men  everywhere,  who  happen  to  be  my 
friends,  the  rule  ought  to  work  both  ways,  and  he  ought  to  be 
responsible  for  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  all  men  or  sets  of 
men  who  were  and  are  now  his  supporters  and  friends,  and 
gave  him  a  pretty  long  string  of  resolutions,  passed  by  men 
who  are  now  his  friends,  and  announcing  doctrines  for  which 
he  does  not  desire  to  be  held  responsible. 

This  still  does  not  satisfy  Judge  Douglas.  He  still  adheres 
to  his  proposition,  that  I  am  responsible  for  what  some  of  my 
friends  in  different  parts  of  the  State  have  done  ;  but  that  he 
is  not  responsible  for  what  his  have  done.  At  least,  so  I  un 
derstand  him.  But  in  addition  to  that,  the  Judge,  at  our  meet 
ing  in  Galesburgh,  last  week,  undertakes  to  establish  that  I 
am  guilty  of  a  species  of  double-dealing  with  the  public — that 
I  make  speeches  of  a  certain  sort  in  the  north,  among  the 
Abolitionists,  which  I  would  not  make  in  the  south,  and  that 
I  make  speeches  of  a  certain  sort  in  the  south  which  I  would 
not  make  in  the  north.  I  apprehend,  in  the  course  I  have 
marked  out  for  myself,  that  I  shall  not  have  to  dwell  at  very 
great  length  upon  this  subject. 

As  this  was  done  in  the  Judge's  opening  speech  at  Gales- 
burgh,  I  had  an  opportunity,  as  I  had  the  middle  speech  there, 
of  saying  something  in  answer  to  it.  He  brought  forward  a 
quotation  or  two  from  a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  at  Chicago, 
and  then,  to  contrast  with  it,  he  brought  forward  an  extract 
of  a  speech  of  mine  at  Charleston,  in  which  he  insisted  that  I 
was  greatly  inconsistent,  and  insisted  that  his  conclusion  fol 
lowed  that  I  was  playing  a  double  part,  and  speaking  in  one 
region  one  way,  and  in  another  region  another  way.  1  have 
not  time  now  to  dwell  on  this  as  long  as  I  would  like,  and 
wish  only  now  to  requote  that  portion  of  my  speech  at  Charles 
ton,  which  the  Judge  quoted,  and  then  make  some  comments 
upon  it.  This  he  quotes  from  me  as  being  delivered  at  Charles 
ton,  and  I  believe  correctly  :  "I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am 
not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about,  in  any 
way,  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black 
races — that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making 
voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  of 
fice,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people  ;  and  I  will  say  in  addi 
tion  to  this,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white 
and  black  races  which  will  ever  forbid  the  two  races  living  to- 


220  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

gether  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And  inafl- 
much  as  they  cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together, 
there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior.  I  am  as 
much  as  any  other  man  in  favor  of  having  the  superior  position 
assigned  to  the  white  race."  This,  I  believe,  is  the  entire 
quotation  from  the  Charleston  speech,  as  Judge  Douglas  made 
it.  His  comments  are  as  follows  : 

"  Yes,  here  you  find  men  who  hurrah  for  Lincoln,  and  say 
he  is  right  when  he  discards  all  distinction  between  races,  or 
when  he  declares  that  he  discards  the  doctrine  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  a  superior  and  inferior  race  ;  and  Abolitionists 
are  required  and  expected  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln  because  he 
goes  for  the  equality  of  races,  holding  that  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  the  white  man  and  negro  were  declared  equal, 
and  endowed  by  law  with  equality.  And  down  south  with 
the  old  line  Whigs,  with  the  Kentuckians,  the  Virginians,  and 
the  Tennesseans,  he  tells  you  there  is  a  physical  difference  be 
tween  the  races,  making  the  one  superior,  the  other  inferior, 
and  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority  of  the  white 
race  over  the  negro." 

Those  are  the  Judge's  comments.  Now  I  wish  to  show  you, 
that  a  month — or,  only  lacking  three  days  of  a  month — before 
I  made  the  speech  at  Charleston,  which  the  Judge  quotes  from, 
he  had,  himself,  heard  me  say  substantially  the  same  thing. 
It  was  in  our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa — and  I  will  say  a  word 
about  where  it  was,  and  the  atmosphere  it  was  in,  after  awhile 
— but  at  our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa,  I  read  an  extract  from 
an  old  speech  of  mine,  made  nearly  four  years  ago,  not  merely 
to  show  my  sentiments,  but  to  show  that  my  sentiments  were 
long  entertained  and  openly  expressed ;  in  which  extract  I 
expressly  declared  that  my  own  feelings  would  not  admit  a 
social  and  political  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races, 
and  that  even  if  my  own  feelings  would  admit  of  it,  I  still 
knew  that  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country  would  not,  and 
that  such  a  thing  was  an  utter  impossibility,  or  substantially 
that.  That  extract  from  my  old  speech,  the  reporters,  by 
some  sort  of  accident,  passed  over,  and  it  was  not  reported. 
I  lay  no  blame  upon  anybody.  I  suppose  they  thought  that 
I  would  hand  it  over  to  them,  and  dropped  reporting  while  I 
was  reading  it,  but  afterward  went  away  without  getting  it 
from  me.  At  the  end  of  that  quotation  from  my  old  speech, 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  221 

which  I  read  at  Ottawa,  I  made  the  comments  which  were 
reported  at  that  time,  and  which  I  will  now  read,  and  ask  you 
to  notice  how  very  nearly  they  are  the  same  as  Judge  Douglas 
says  were  delivered  by  me,  down  in  Egypt.  After  reading  I 
added  these  words  :  u  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  wan't  to  read  at 
any  great  length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all  I  have 
ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  or  the  black 
race,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it  ;  anything  that  argues  me 
into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the 
negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastical  arrangement  of  words 
by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut- 
horse.  I  will  say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have 
no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  insti 
tution  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  right 
to  do  so.  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose 
to  introduce  political  and  social  equality  between  the  white 
and  black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between  the 
two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever  forbid  their 
living  together  on  the  footing  of  perfect  equality,  and  inas 
much  as  it  becomes  a  necessity- that  there  must  be.  a  difference, 
I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which 
1  belong  having  the  superior  position.  I  have  never  said  any 
thing  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world,  why  the  negro  is  not  entitled 
to  all  the  rights  enumerated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence — the  right  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 
I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man. 
I  agree  with  Judge  Douglas,  that  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many 
reepects,  certainly  not  in  color — perhaps  not  in  intellectual 
and  moral  endowments ;  but  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread 
without  the  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns, 
he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal 
of  every  other  man." 

I  have  chiefly  introduced  this  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the 
Judge's  charge  that  the  quotation  he  took  from  my  Charleston 
speech  was  what  I  would  say  down  south  among  the  Ken- 
tuckians,  the  Virginians,  etc.,  but  would  not  say  in  the  regions 
in  which  was  supposed  to  be  more  of  the  abolition  element.  I 
now  make  this  comment :  That  speech,  from  which  I  have 
now  read  the  quotation,  and  which  is  there  given  correctly, 
perhaps  too  much  so  for  good  taste,  was  made  away  up  north 


222  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

in  the  abolition  district  of  this  State  par  excellence — in  the 
Lovejoy  District — in  the  personal  presence  of  Lovejoy,  for  he 
was  on  the  stand  with  us  when  I  made  it.  It  had  been  made 
and  put  in  print  in  that  region  only  three  days  less  than  a 
month  before  the  speech  made  at  Charleston,  the  like  of  which 
Judge  Douglas  thinks  I  would  not  make  where  there  was  any 
Abolition  element.  I  only  refer  to  this  matter  to  say  that  I 
am  altogether  unconscious  of  having  attempted  any  double- 
dealing  anywhere — that  upon  one  occasion  I  may  say  one 
thing  and  leave  other  things  unsaid,  and  vice  versa  ;  but  that  I 
have  said  anything  on  one  occasion  that  is  inconsistent  with 
what  I  have  said  elsewhere,  I  deny — at  least  I  deny  it  so  far 
as  the  intention  is  concerned.  T  find  that  I  have  devoted  to 
this  topic  a  larger  portion  of  my  time  than  I  had  intended.  I 
wished  to  show,  but  I  will  pass  it  upon  this  occasion,  that  in 
the  sentiment  I  have  occasionally  advanced  upon  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  I  am  entirely  borne  out  by  the  senti 
ments  advanced  by  our  old  Whig  leader,  Henry  Clay,  and  I 
have  the  book  here  to  show  it  from ;  but  because  I  have  al 
ready  occupied  more  time  than  I  intended  to  do  on  that  topic, 
I  pass  over  it. 

At  Galesburgh  I  tried  to  show  that  by  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision,  pushed  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  slavery  would  be 
established  in  all  the  States  as  well  as  in  the  territories.  I  did 
this  because,  upon  a  former  occasion,  I  had  asked  Judge 
Douglas,  whether,  if  the  Supreme  Court  should  make  a  decis 
ion  declaring  that  the  States  had  not  the  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  he  would  adopt  and  follow  that  de 
cision  as  a  rule  of  political  action  ;  and  becnuse  he  had  not 
directly  answered  that  question,  but  had  merely  contented 
himself  with  sneering  at  it,  I  again  introduced  it,  and  tried  to 
show  that  the  conclusion  that  I  stated  followed  inevitably  and 
logically  from  the  proposition  already  decided  by  the  court. 
Judge  Douglas  had  the  privilege  of  replying  to  me  at  Gales- 
burgh,  and  again  he  gave  me  no  direct  answer  as  to  whether 
he  would  or  would  not  sustain  such  a  decision  if  made.  I 
give  him  this  third  chance  to  say  yes  or  no.  He  is  not 
obliged  to  do  either — probably  he  will  not  do  either — but  I  give 
him  the  third  chance.  I  tried  to  show  then  that  this  result — 
this  conclusion  inevitably  followed  from  the  point  already  de 
cided  by  the  court.  The  Judge,  in  his  reply,  again  sneers  at 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  223 

the  thonght  of  the  court  making  any  such  decision,  and  in  the 
course  of  his  remarks  upon  this  subject,  uses  the  language 
which  I  will  now  read.  Speaking  of  me  the  Judge  says : 

''Pie  goes  on  and  insists  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  would 
carry  slavery  into  the  free  States,  notwithstanding  the  decis 
ion  itself  says  the  contrary."  And  he  adds:  "Mr.  Lincoln 
knows  that  there  is  no  member  of  the  Supreme  Court  that 
holds  that  doctrine.  He  knows  that  every  one  of  them  in 
their  opinions  held  the  reverse." 

I  especially  introduce  this  subject  again  for  the  purpose  of 
saying  that  I  have  the  Dred  Scott  decision  here,  and  E  will 
thank  Judge  Douglas  to  lay  his  finger  upon  the  place  in  the 
entire  opinions  of  the  court  where  any  of  them  "  says  the  con 
trary."  It  is  very  hard  to  affirm  a  negative  with  entire  con 
fidence.  I  say,  however,  that  I  have  examined  that  decision 
with  a  good  deal  of  care,  as  a  lawyer  examines  a  decision, 
and  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  do  so,  the  court  has  nowhere 
in  its  opinions  said  that  the  States  have  the  power  to  exclude 
slavery,  nor  have  they  used  other  language  substantially  that. 
I  also  say,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  not  one  of  the  concurring 
Judges  has  said  that  the  States  can  exclude  slavery,  *nor  said 
anything  that  was  substantially  that.  The  nearest  approach 
that  any  one  of  them  has  made  to  it,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  was 
by  Judge  Nelson,  and  the  approach  he  made  to  it.wa«  exactly, 
in  substance,  the  Nebraska  bill — that  the  States  had  the  ex 
clusive  power  over  the  question  of  slavery,  so  far  as  they  are 
not  limited  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  asked 
the  question  therefore,  if  the  non-concurring  Judges,  McLean 
or  Curtis,  had  asked  to  get  an  express  declaration  that  the 
States  could  absolutely  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  what 
reason  have  we  to  believe  that  it  would  not  havebeen  voted 
down  by  the  majority  of  the  Judges,  just  as  Chase's  amend 
ment  was  voted  down  by  Judge  Douglas  and  his  compeers 
when  it  was  offered  to  the  Nebraska  bill. 

Also  at  Galesburgh,  I  said  something  in  regard  to  those 
Springfield  resolutions  that  Judge  Douglas  attempted  to  use 
upon  me  at  Ottawa,  and  commented  at  some  length  upon  the 
fact  that  they  were,  as  presented,  not  genuine.  Judge  Doug 
las  in  his  reply  to  me  seemed  to  be  somewhat  exasperated. 
He  said  he  would  never  have  believed  that  Abraham  Lincoln, 
as  he  kindly  called  me,  would  have  attempted  such  a  thing  as 


224  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

I  had  attempted  upon  that  occasion  ;  and  among  other  ex 
pressions  which  he  used  toward  me,  was  that  I  dared  to  say 
forgery — that  I  had  dared  to  say  forgery  [turning  to  Judge 
Douglas].  Yes,  Judge,  I  did  dare  to  say  forgery.  But  in  this 
political  canvass,  the  Judge  ought  to  remember  that  I  was  not 
The  first  who  dared  to  say  forgery.  At  Jacksonville  Judge 
Douglas  made  a  speech  in  answer  to  something  said  by  Judge 
Trumbull,  and  at  the  close  of  what  he  said  upon  that  subject, 
he  dared  to  say  that  Trumbull  had  forged  his  evidence.  He 
said,  too,  that  he  should  not  concern  himself  with  Trumbull 
any  more,  but  thereafter  he  should  hold  Lincoln  responsible 
for  the  slanders  upon  him.  When  I  met  him  at  Charleston 
after  that,  although  I  think  that  I  should  not  have  noticed  the 
subject  if  he  had  not  said  he  would  hold  me  responsible  for  it, 
I  spread  out  before  him  the  statements  of  the  evidence  that 
Judge  Trumbull  had  used,  and  I  asked  Judge  Douglas,  piece 
by  piece,  to  put  his  finger  upon  one  piece  of  all  that  evidence 
that  he  would  say  was  a  forgery !  When  1  went  through 
with  each  and  every  piece,  Judge  Douglas  did  not  dare  then 
to  say  that  any  piece  of  it  was  a  forgery.  So  it  seems  that 
there  are  some  things  that  Judge  Douglas  dares  to  do,  and 
some  that  he  dares  not  to  do. 

A  voice — "  It's  the  same  thing  with  you." 

Mr.  Lincoln — Yes,  sir,  it's  the  same  thing  with  me.  I  do 
dare  to  say  forgery  when  it's  true,  and  don't  dare  to  say 
forgery  when  it's  false.  Now,  I  will  say  here  to  the  audience 
and  to  Judge  Douglas,  I  have  not  dared  to  say  he  committed  a 
forgery,  and  I  never  shall  until  I  know  it ;  but  I  did  dare  to 
say — just  to  suggest  to  the  Judge — that  a  forgery  had  been 
committed,  which  by  his  own  showing  had  been  traced  to  him 
and  two  of  his  friends.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  him  that  he 
had  expressly  promised  in  one  of  his  public  speeches  to  inves 
tigate  that  matter  ;  and  I  dared  to  suggest  to  him  that  there 
was  an  implied  promise  that  when  he  investigated  it  he  would 
make  known  the  result.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  the  Judge  that 
he  could  not  expect  to  be  quite  clear  of  suspicion  of  that  fraud, 
for  since  the  time  that  promise  was  made  he  had  been  with 
those  friends,  and  had  not  kept  his  promise  in  regard  to  the 
investigation  and  the  report  upon  it.  I  am  not  a  very  daring 
man,  but  I  dared  that  much,  Judge,  and  I  am  not  much 
scared  about  it  yet.  When  the  Judge  says  he  wouldn't  have 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  225 

believed  of  Abraham  Lincoln  that  he  would  have  made  such  an 
attempt  as  that,  he  reminds  me  of  the  fact  that  he  entered 
upon  this  canvass  with  the  purpose  to  treat  me  courteously ; 
that  touched  me  somewhat.  It  sets  me  to  thinking.  I  was 
aware,  when  it  was  first  agreed  that  Judge  Douglas  and  I 
were  to  have  these  seven-joint  discussions,-  that  they  were 
the  successive  acts  of  a  drama — perhaps  I  should  say,  to  be 
enacted  not  merely  in  the  face  of  audiences  like  this,  but  in 
the  face  of  the  nation,  and  to  some  extent,  by  my  relation  to 
him,  and  not  from  anything  in  myself,  in  the  face  of  the 
world:  and  I  am  anxious  tliat  they  should  be  conducted  with 
dignity  and  in  the  good  temper  which  would  be  befitting  the 
vast  audience  before  which  they  were  conducted.  But  when 
Judge  Douglas  got  home  from  Washington  and  made  his  first 
speech  in  Chicago,  the  evening  afterward  I  made  some  sort  of  a 
reply  to  it.  His  second  speech  was  made  at  Bloomington,  in 
which  he  commented  upon  my  speech  at  Chicago,  and  said  that 
I  had  used  language  ingeniously  contrived  to  conceal  my  inten 
tions,  or  words  to  that  effect.  Now,  I  understand  that  this 
is  an  imputation  upon  my  veracity  and  my  candor.  I  do  not 
know  what  the  Judge  understood  by  it  ;  but  in  our  first  dis 
cussion  at  Ottawa,  he  led  off  by  charging  a  bargain,  somewhat 
corrupt  in  its  character,  upon  Trumbull  and  myself — that  we 
had  entered  into  a  bargain,  one  of  the  terms  of  which  was  that 
Trumbull  was  to  abolitionize  the  old  Democratic  party,  and  I 
(Lincoln)  was  to  abolitionize  the  old  Whig  party — I  pretend 
ing  to  be  as  good  an  old  line  Whig  as  ever.  Judge  Douglas 
may  not  understand  that  he  implicated  my  truthfulness  and 
my  honor,  when  he  said  I  was  doing  one  thing  and  pretending 
another  ;  and  I  misunderstood  him  if  he  thought  he  was  treat 
ing  me  in  a  dignified  way,  as  a  man  of  honor  and  truth,  as  he 
now  claims  he  was  disposed  to  treat  me.  Even  after  that 
time,  at  Galesburgh,  when  he  brings  forward  an  extract  from 
a  speech  made  at  Chicago,  and  an  extract  from  a  speech 
made  at  Charleston,  to  prove  that  I  was  trying  to  play  a 
double  part — and  that  I  was  trying  to  cheat  the  public,  and 
get  votes  upon  one  set  of  principles  at  one  place  and  upon 
another  set  of  principles  at  another  place — I  do  not  under 
stand  but  what  he  impeaches  my  honor,  my  veracity,  and 
my  candor,  and  because  he  does  this,  I  do  not  understand  that 
I  am  bound,  if  I  see  a  truthful  ground  for  it,  to  keep  my 


226  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

hands  off  him.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that  Judge  Douglas  was 
disposed  to  treat  me  in  this  way,  I  signified  in  one  of  my 
speeches  that  I  should  be  driven  to  draw  upon  whatever  of 
humble  resources  I  might  have — to  adopt  a  new  course  with 
him.  I  was  not  entirely  sure  that  I  should  be  able  to  hold 
my  own  with  him,  but  I  at  least  had  the  purpose  made  to  do 
as  well  as  I  could  upon  him  ;  and  now  I  say  that  I  will  not 
be  the  first  to  cry  "hold."  I  think  it  originated  with  tSie 
Judge,  and  if  he  quits,  I  probably  will.  But  I  shall  not  nsk 
any  favors  at  all.  He  asks  me,  as  he  asks  the  audience,  if  I 
wish  to  push  this  matter  to  the  point  of  personal  difficulty.  I 
tell  him,  no.  He  did  not  make  a  mistake,  in  one  of  his  early 
speeches,  when  he  calls  mean  "  amiable1'  man,  though  per 
haps  he  did  when  he  called  me  an  u  intelligent"  man.  It 
really  hurts  me  very  much  to  suppose  that  I  have  wronged 
anybody  on  earth.  I  again  tell  him,  no !  I  very  much  pre 
fer,  when  this  canvass  shall  be  over,  however  it  may  result, 
that  we  at  least  part  without  any  bitter  recollections  of  per 
sonal  ^difficulties. 

The  Judge,  in  his  concluding  speech  at  Galesburgh,  says 
that  I  was  pushing  this  matter  to  a  personal  difficulty,  to 
avoid  the  responsibility  for  the  enormity  of  my  principles.  I 
say  to  the  Judge  and  this  audience  now,  that  I  will  again 
state  our  principles  as  well  as  I  hastily  can  in  all  their  enor 
mity,  and  if  the  Judge  hereafter  chooses  to  confine  himself  to 
a  war  upon  these  principles,  he  will  probably  not  find  me  de 
parting  from  the  same  course. 

We  have  in  this  nation  this  element  of  domestic  slavery. 
It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  certainty  that  it  is  a  disturbing  ele 
ment.  It  is^  the  opinion  of  all  the. great  men  who  have  ex- 
pre.-sed  an  opinion  upon  it,  that  it  is  a  dangerous  element. 
We  keep  up  a  controversy  in  regard  to  it.  That  controversy 
necessarily  springs  from  difference  of  opinion,  and  if  we  can 
learn  exactly — can  reduce  to  the  lowest  elements — what  that 
difference  of  opinion  is,  we  perhaps  shall  be  better  prepared 
for  discussing  the  different  systems  of  policy  that  we  would 
propose  in  regard  to  that  disturbing  element.  I  suggest  that 
the  difference  of  opinion,  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  is  no 
other  than  the  difference  between  the  men  who  think  slavery 
a  wrong  and  those  who  do  not  think  it  wrong.  The  Repub 
lican  party  think  it  wrong — we  think  it  is  a  moral,  a  social, 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  227 


and  a  political  wrong.  We  think  it  is  a  wrong  not  confining 
itself  merely  to  the  persons  or  the  States  where  it  exists,  but 
that  it  is  a  wrong  in  its  tendency,  to  say  the  least,  that  ex 
tends  itself  to  the  existence  of  the  whole  nation.  Because  we 
think  it  wrong,  we  propose  a  course  of  policy  that  shall  deal 
with  it  as  a  wrong.  We  deal  with  it  as  with  any  other 
wrong,  in  so  far  as  we  can  prevent  its  growing  any  larger,  arid 
so  deal  with  it  that  in  the  run  of  time  there  may  be  some 
promise  of  an  end  to  it.  We  have  a  due  regard  to  the  actual 
presence  of  it  among  us  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it 
in  any  satisfactory  way,  and  all  the  constitutional  obligations 
thrown  about  it.  I  suppose  that  in  reference  both  to  its  ac 
tual  existence  in  the  nation,  and  to  our  constitutional  obliga 
tions,  we  have  no  right  at  all  to  disturb  it  in  the  States  where 
it  exists,  and  we  profess  that  we  have  no  more  inclination  to 
disturb  it  than  we  have  the  right  to  do  it.  We  go  farther 
than  that  ;  we  don't  propose  to  disturb  it  where,  in  one  in 
stance,  we  think  the  Constitution  would. permit  us.  We  think 
the  Constitution  would  permit  us  to  disturb  it  in  the  District 
of  Columbia.  Still  we  do  not  propose  to  do  that,  unless  it 
should  be  in  terms  which  I  don't  suppose  the  nation  is  very 
likely  soon  to  agree  to — the  terms  of  making  the  emancipation 
gradual  and  compensating  the  unwilling  owners.  Where  we 
suppose  we  have  the  constitutional  right,  we  restrain  our 
selves  in  reference  to  the  actual  existence  of  the  institution 
and  the  difficulties  thrown  about  it.  We  also  oppose  it  as  an 
evil  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  spread  itself.  We  insist  on  the  policy 
that  shall  restrict  it  to  its  present  limits.  We  don't  suppose 
that  in  doing  this  we  violate  anything  due  to  the  actual  pres 
ence  of  the  institution,  or  anything  due  to  the  constitutional 
guaranties  thrown  aroun  1  it. 

We  oppose  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  a  certain  way,  upon 
which  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  address  you  a  few  words.  We  do 
not  propose  that  when  Dred  Scott  has  been  decided  to  be  a 
slave,  by  the  court,  we,  as  a  mob,  will  decide  him  to  be  free. 
We  do  not  propose  that,  when  any  other  one,  or  one  thousand, 
shall  be  decided  by  that  court  to  be  slaves,  we  will  in  any  vio 
lent  way  disturb  the  rights  of  property  thus  settled ;  but  we 
nevertheless  do  oppose  that  decision  as  a  political  rule,  which 
shall  be  binding  on  the  voter  to  vote  for  nobody  who  thinks  it 
wrong,  which  shall  be  binding  on  the  members  of  Congress  or 


228  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

the  President  to  favor  no  measure  that  does  not  actually  con 
cur  with  the  principles  of  that  decision.  We  do  not  propose 
to  be  bound  by  it  as  a  political  rule  in  that  way,  because  we 
think  it  lays  the  foundation  not  merely  of  enlarging  and 
spreading  out  what  we  consider  an  evil,  but  it  lays  the  foun 
dation  for  spreading  that  evil  into  the  States  themselves.  We 
propose  so  resisting  it  as  to  have  it  reversed  if  we  can,  and  a 
new  judicial  rule  established  upon  this  subject 

I  will  add  this,  that  if  there  be  any  man  who  does  not  be 
lieve  that  slavery  is  wrong  in  the  three  aspects  which  I  have 
mentioned,  or  in  any  one  of  them,  that  man  is  misplaced,  and 
ought  to  leave  us.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  be  any 
man  in  the  Republican  party  who  is  impatient  over  the  neces 
sity  springing  from  its  actual  presence,  and  is  impatient  of 
the  constitutional  guaranties  thrown  around  it,  and  would  act 
in  disregard  of  these,  he  too  is  misplaced,  standing  with  us. 
He  will  find  his  place  somewhere  else  ;  for  we  have  a  due  re 
gard,  so  far  as  we  are  capable  of  understanding  them,  for  all 
these  things.  This,  gentlemen,  as  well  as  I  can  give  it,  is  a 
plain  statement  of  our  principles  in  all  their  enormity. 

I  will  say  now,  that  there  is  a  sentiment  in  the  country  con 
trary  to  me — a  sentiment  which  holds  that  slavery  is  not 
wrong,  and  therefore  it  goes  for  the  policy  that  does  not  pro 
pose  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong.  That  policy  is  the  Demo 
cratic  policy,  and  that  sentiment  is  the  Democratic  sentiment. 
If  there  be  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  one  of  this  vast  audience 
that  this  is  really  the  central  idea  of  the  Democratic  party,  in 
relation  to  this  subject,  I  ask  him  to  bear  with  me  while  I 
state  a  few  things  tending,  as  I  think,  to  prove  that  proposi 
tion.  In  the  first  place,  the  leading  man — I  think  1  may  do 
my  friend,  Judge  Douglas,  the  honor  of  calling  him  such — 
advocating  the  present  Democratic  policy,  never  himself  says 
it  is  wrong.  He  has  the  high  distinction,  so  far  as  I  know,  of 
never  having  said  slavery  is  either  right  or  wrong.  Almost 
everybody  else  says  one  or  the  other,  but  the  Judge  never  docs. 
If  there  be  a  man  in  the  Democratic  party  who  thinks  it  is 
wrong,  and  yet  clings  to  that  party,  I  suggest  to  him  in  the  iii>t 
place  that  his  leader  don't  talk  as  he  does,  for  he  never  says  that 
it  is  wrong.  In  the  second  place,  I  suggest  to  him  that  if 
he  will  examine  the  policy  proposed  to  be  carried  forward,  lie 
will  find  that  he  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  229 

thing  wrong  in  it.  If  you  will  examine  the  arguments  that 
are  made  on  it,  you  will  find  that  every  one  carefully  excludes 
the  idea  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  slavery.  Perhaps 
that  Democrat  who  says  he  is  as  much  opposed  to  slavery  as  I 
am,  will  tell  me  that  I  am  wrong  about  this.  I  wish  him  to 
examine  his  own  course  in  regard  to  this  matter  a  moment, 
and  then  see  if  his  opinion  will  not  be  changed  a  little.  You 
say  it  is  wrong  ;  but  don't  you  constantly  object  to  anybody 
else  saying  so  f  Do  you  not  constantly  argue  that  this  is  not 
the  right  place  to  oppose  it  ?  You  say  it  must  not  be  opposed 
in  the  free  States,  because  slavery  is  not  here*}  it  must  not  be 
opposed  in  the  slave  States,  because  it  is  there  ;  it  must  not 
be  opposed  in  politics,  because  that  will  make  a  fuss  ;  it  must 
not  be  opposed  in  the  pulpit,  because  it  is  not  religion.  Then 
where  is  the  place  to  oppose  it  ?  There  is  no  suitable  place  to 
oppose  it.  There  is  no  plan  in  the  country  to  oppose  this  evil 
overspreading  the  continent,  which  you  say  yourself  is  coming. 
Frank  Blair  and  G-ratz  Brown  tried  to  get  up  a  system  of 
gradual  emancipation  in  Missouri,  had  an  election  in  August 
and  got  beat,  and  you,  Mr.  Democrat,  threw  up  your  hat, 
and  hallooed  "  Hurrah  for  Democracy."  So,  I  say  again,  that 
in  regprd  to  the  arguments  that  are  made,  when  Judge  Doug 
las  says  he  "don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted 
down,"  whether  he  means  that  as  an  individual  expression  of 
sentiment,  or  only  as  a  sort  of  statement  of  his  views  on  na 
tional  policy,  it  is  alike  true  to  say  that  he  can  thus  argue 
logically  if  he  don't  see  anything  wrong  in  it  ;  but  he  cannot 
say  so  logically  if  he  admits  that  slavery  is  wrong.  He  can 
not  say  that  he  would  as  soon  see  a  wrong  voted  up  as  voted 
down.  When  Judge  Douglas  says,  that  whoever  or  whatever 
community  wants  slaves,  they  have  a  right  to  have  them,  he 
is  perfectly  logical  if  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  the  institution  ; 
but  if  you  admit  that  it  is  wrong,  he  cannot  logically  say  that 
anybody  has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  When  he  says  that  slave 
property  and  horse  and  hog  property  are  alike,  to  be  allowed 
to  go  into  the  territories,  upon  the  principle  of  equality,  he  is 
reasoning  truly,  if  there  is  no  difference  between  them  as  prop 
erty  ;  but  if  the  one  is  property,  held  rightfully,  and  the  other 
is  wrong,  then  there  is  no  equality  between  the  right  and 
wrong  ;  so  that,  turn  it  in  any  way  you  can,  in  all  the  argu 
ments  sustaining  the  Democratic  policy,  and  in  that  policy  it- 


230  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 


self,  there  is  a  careful,  studied  exclusion  of  the  idea  that  there 
is  anything  wrong  in  slavery.  Let  us  understand  this.  1  am 
not,  just  here,  trying  to  prove  that  we  are  right  and  they  are 
wrong.  I  have  been  stating  where  we  and  they  stand,  and 
trying  to  show  what  is  the  real  difference  between  us  ;  and  I 
now  say,  that  whenever  we  can  get  the  question  distinctly 
stated — can  get  all  these  men  who  believe  that  slavery  is  in 
some  of  these  respects  wrong,  to  stand  and  act  with  us  in 
treating  it  as  a  wrong — then,  and  not  till  then,  I  think  we  will 
in  some  way  come  to  an  end  of  this  slavery  agitation. 


MR  LINCOLN'S  KEPLY    TO    MB.   DOUGLAS, 
AT  ALTON,  ILL.,    October  15,  1858. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  1  have  been  somewhat,  in  my 
own  mind,  complimented  by  a  large  portion  of  Judge  Doug 
las's  speech — I  mean  that  portion  which  he  devotes  to  the  con 
troversy  between  himself  and  the  present  Administration, 
This  is  the  sevenlh  time  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  have  met 
in  these  joint  discussions,  and  he  has  been  gradually  improv 
ing  in  regard  to  his  war  with  the  Administration.  At  Quincy, 
day  before  yesterday,  he  was  a  little  more  severe  upon  the  Ad 
ministration  than  I  had  heard  him  upon  any  occasion,  and  I  took 
pains  to  compliment  him  for  it.  I  then  told  him  to  "Give  it 
to  them  with  all  the  power  he  had  ;"  and  as  some  of  them 
were  present,  I  told  them  I  would  be  very  much  obliged  if 
they  would  give  it  to  him  in  about  the  same  way.  I  take  it  he 
has  now  vastly  improved  upon  the  attack  he  made  then  upon 
the  Administration.  I  flatter  myself  he  has  really  taken  my 
advice  on  this  subject.  All  I  can  say  now  is  to  recommend 
to  him  and  to  them  what  I  then  commended — to  prosecute 
the  war  against  one  another  in  the  most  vigorous  manner.  I 
say  to  them  again — "  Go  it,  husband  ! — Go  it,  bear  !" 

There  is  one  other  thing  I  will  mention  before  I  will  leave 
this  branch  of  the  discussion — although  I  do  not  consider  it 
much  of  my  business,  any  way.  I  refer  to  that  part  of  the 
Judge's  remarks  where  he  undertakes  to  involve  Mr.  Buchanan 
in  an  inconsistency.  He  reads  something  from  Mr.  Buchanan, 
from  which  he  undertakes  to  involve  him  in  an  inconsistency  ; 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  231 


and  he  gets  something  of  a  cheer  for  having  done  so.  I 
would  only  remind  the  Judge  that  while  he  is  very  valiantly 
fighting  for  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  it  has  been  but  a  little  while  since  he  was  the 
valiant  advocate  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  I  want  to 
know  if  Buchanan  has  not  as  much  right  to  be  inconsistent  as 
Douglas  has  ?  Has  Douglas  the  exclusive  right,  in  this  country, 
of  being  on  all  sides  of  all  questions  1  Is  nobody  allowed  that 
high  privilege  but  himself?  Is  he  to  have  an  entire  monopoly 
on  that  subject  ? 

So  far  as  Judge  Douglas  addressed  his  speech  to  me,  or  so 
far  as  it  was  about  me,  it  is  my  business  to  pay  some  atten 
tion  to  it.  I  have  heard  the  Judge  state  two  or  three  times 
what  he  has  stated  to-day — that  in  a  speech  which  I  made  at 
Springfield,  Illinois,  I  had  in  a  very  especial  manner  com 
plained  that  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  de 
cided  that  a  negro  could  never  be  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  I  have  omitted,  by  some  accident,  heretofore,  to  an 
alyze  this  statement,  and  it  is  required  of  me  to  notice  it  now. 
In  point  of  fact  it  is  untrue.  I  never  have  complained  especially 
of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  held  that  a  negro  could 
not  be  a  citizen,  and  the  Judge  is  always  wrong  when  he  says 
I  ever  did  so  complain  of  it.  I  have  the  speech  here,  and  I 
will  thank  him,  .jor  any  of  his  friends,  to  show  where  I 
said  that  a  negro  should  be  a  citizen,  and  complained  es 
pecially  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  declared  he 
could  not  be  one.  I  have  done  no  such  thing, -and  Judge 
Douglas  so  persistently  insisting  that  I  have  done  so,  has 
strongly  impressed  me  with  the  belief  of  a  predetermination 
on  his  part  to  misrepresent  me.  He  could  not  get  his  founda 
tion  for  insisting  that  I  wa^  in  favor  of  this  negro  equality 
anywhere  else  as  well  as  he  could  by  assuming  that  untrue 
proposition.  Let  me  tell  this  audience  what  is  true  in  regard 
to  that  matter  ;  and  the  means  by  which  they  may  correct  me 
if  1  do  not  tell  them  truly  is  by  a  recurrence  to  the  speech 
itself.  I  spoke  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  my  Springfield 
speech,  and  I  was  then  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  was  a  portion  of  a  system,  or  scheme,  to  make 
slavery  national  in  this  country.  I  pointed  out  what  things 
had  been  decided  by  the  court.  I  mentioned  as  a  fact  that 
they  had  decided  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen— that 


232  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


they  had  clone  so,  as  I  supposed,  to  deprive  the  negro,  under 
all  circumstances,  of  the  remotest  possibility  of  ever  becoming 
a  citizen  and  claiming  the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  under  a  certain  clause  of  the  Constitution.  I  stated 
that,  without  making  any  complaint  of  it  at  all.  I  then  went 
on  and  stated  the  other  points  decided  in  the  case,  namely  : 
that  the  bringing  of  a  negro  in  the  State  of  Illinois  and  hold 
ing  him  in  slavery  for  two  years  here  was  a  matter  in  regard 
to  which  they  would  not  decide  whether  it  would  make  him 
free  or  not;  that  they  decided  the  further  point  that  taking 
him  into  a  United  States  Territory  where  slavery  was  pro 
hibited  by  act  of  Congress,  did  not  make  him  free,  because 
that  act  of  Congress,  as  they  held,  was  unconstitutional.  I 
mentioned  these  three  things  as  making  up  the  points  decided 
in  that  case.  I  mentioned  the-m  in  a  lump  taken  in  connection 
with  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  and  the  amend 
ment  of  Chase,  offered  at  the  time,  declaratory  of  the  right  of 
the  people  of  the  Territories  to,  exclude  slavery,  which  was 
voted  down  by  the  friends  of  the  bill.  I  mentioned  all  these 
things  together,  as  evidence  tending  to  prove  a  combination 
and  conspiracy  to  make  the  institution  of  slavery  national.  In 
that  connection  and  in  that  way  I  mentioned  the  decision  on 
the  point  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen,  and  in  no  other 
connection. 

Out  of  this,  Judge  Douglas  builds  up  his-  beautiful  fabrica 
tion — of  my  purpose  to  introduce  a  perfect,  social,  and  polit 
ical  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races.  His  asser 
tion  that  I  made  an  "  especial  objection"  (that  is  his  exact 
language)  to  the  decision  on  this  account,  is  untrue  in  point 
of  fact. 

Now,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as  Henry  Clay  has 
been  alluded  to,  I  desire  to  place  myself,  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Clay,  as  nearly  right  before  this  people  as  may  be.  I  am 
quite  aware  what  the  Judge's  object  is  here  by  all  these  allu 
sions.  He  knows  that  we  are  before  an  audience,  having 
strong  sympathies  southward  by  relationship,  place  of  birth, 
and  so  on.  He  desires  to  place  me  in  an  extremely  Abolition 
attitude.  -He  read  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  alludes  with 
out  reading  to-day,  to  a  portion  of  a  speech  which  I  delivered 
in  Chicago.  In  his  quotations  from  that  speech,  as  he  has 
made  them  upon  former  occasions,  the  extracts  were  taken  in 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  233 

such  a  way  as,  I  suppose,  brings  them  within  the  definition  of 
what  is  called  garbling — taking  portions  of  a  speech  which, 
when  taken  by  themselves,  do  not  present  the  entire  sense  of 
the  speaker  as  expressed  at  the  time.  I  propose,  therefore, 
out  of  that  same  speech,  to  show  how  one  portion  of  it  which 
he  skipped  over  (taking  an  extract  before  and  an  extract  after) 
will  give  a  different  idea,  and  the  true  idea  I  intended  to  con 
vey.  It  will  take  me  some  little  time  to  read  it,  bnt  I  believe 
I  will  occupy  the  time  that  way. 

You  have  heard  him  frequently  allude  to  my  controversy 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  I 
confess  that  I  have  had  a  struggle  with  Judge  Douglas  on  that 
matter,  and  I  will  try  briefly  to  place  myself  right  in  regard 
to.  it  on  this  occasion.  I  said — and  it  is  between  the  extracts 
Judge  Douglas  has  taken  from  this  speech,  and  put  in  his  pub 
lished  speeches : 

"  It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that 
make  necessities  and  impose  them  upon  us,  and  to  the  extent 
that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man  he  must  submit  to  it. 
I  think  that  was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves 
when  we  established  this  government.  We  had  slaves  among 
us  ;  we  could  not  get  our  Constitution  unless  we  permitted 
them  to  remain  in  slavery  ;  we  could  not  secure  the  good  we 
did  secure  if  we  grasped  for  more ;  and  having,  by  necessity, 
submitted  to  that  much,  it  does  not  destroy  the  principle  that 
is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let  the  charter  remain  as  our 
standard." 

Now  I  have  upon  all  occasions  declared  as  strongly  as  Judge 
Douglas  against  the  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  existing 
institution  of  slavery.  You  hear  me  read  it  from  the  same 
speech  from  which  he  takes  garbled  extracts  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  upon  me  a  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery,  and  establish  a  perfect  social  and  political 
equality  between  negroes  and  white  people. 

Allow  me,  while  upon  this  subject,  briefly  to  present  one 
other  extract  from  a  speech  of  mine,  more  than  a  year  ago,  at 
Springfield,  in  discussing  this  very  same  question,  soon  after 
Judge  Douglas  took  his  ground  that  negroes  were  not  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  : 

"I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument  intended  to 
include  all  men,  but  they  did  not  mean  to  declare  all  men 


234  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

equal  in  all  rejects.  They  did  not  mean  to  say  all  men  were 
equal  in  color,  size,  intellect,  moral  development,  or  social 
capacity.  They  defined  with  tolerable  distinctness  in  what 
they  did  consider  all  men  created  equal — equal  in  certain  ina 
lienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness.  This  they  said,  and  this  they  meant.  They 
did  not  mean  to  assert  the  obvious  untruth,  that  all  were  then 
actually  enjoying  that  equality,  or  yet,  that  they  were  about 
to  confer  it  immediately  upon  them.  In  fact  they  had  no 
power  to  confer  such  a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  declare 
the  right,  so  that  the  enforcement  of  it  might  follow  as  fast  as 
circumstances  should  permit. 

"  They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for  free  society 
which  should  be  familiar  to  all :  constantly  looked  to,  con 
stantly  labored  for,  and  even,  though  never  perfectly  attained, 
constantly  approximated,  and  thereby  constantly  spreading 
and  deepening  its  influence,  and  augmenting  the  happiness  and 
value  of  life  to  all  people,  of  all  colors,  everywhere." 

There  again  are  the  sentiments  I  have  expressed  in  regard 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  upon  a  former  occasion — 
sentiments  which  have  been  put  in  print  and  read  wherever 
anybody  cared  to  know  what  so  humble  an  individual  as  my 
self  chose  to  say  in  regard  to  it. 

At  Galesburgh,  the  other  day,  I  said  in  answer  to  Judge 
Douglas,  that  three  years  ago  there  never  had  been  a  man,  so 
far  as  I  knew  or  believed,  in  the  whole  world,  who  had  said 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  include  negroes 
in  the  term  "  all  men."  I  re-assert  it  to-day.  I  assert  that 
Judge  Douglas  and  all  his  friends  may  search  the  whole 
records  of  the  country,  and  it  will  be  a  matter  of  great  aston 
ishment  to  me  if  they  shall  be  able  to  find  that  one  human 
being,  three  years  ago,  had  ever  uttered  the  astounding  senti- 
mtfnt  that  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  Declaration  did  not 
include  the  negro.  Do  not  let  me  be  misunderstood.  I  know 
that  more  than  three  years  ago  there  were  men  who,  finding 
this  assertion  constantly  in  the  way  of  their  schemes  to  bring 
about  the  ascendency  and  perpetuation  of  slavery,  denied  the 
truth  of  it,  I  know  that  Mr.  Calhoun  and  all  the  politicians 
of  his  school  denied  the  truth  of  the  Declaration.  I  know 
that  it  ran  along  in  the  mouths  of  some  Southern  men  for  a, 
period  of  years,  ending  at  last  in  that  shameful,  though  rather 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  235 


forcible,  declaration  of  Pettit,  of  Indiana,  upon  the  floor  of  the 
United  States  Senate,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
was,  in  that  respect,  "  a  self-evident  lie,"  rather  than  a  self- 
evident  truth.  But  I  say,  with  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  this 
hawking  at  the  Declaration  without  directly  attacking  it,  that 
three  years  ago  there  never  had  lived  a  man  who  had  ventured 
to  assail  it  in  the  sneaking  way  of  pretending  to  believe  it  and 
then  asserting  it  did  not  include  the  negro.  I  believe  the  first 
man  who  ever  said  it  was  Chief  Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  and  the  next  to  him  was  our  friend,  Stephen  A. 
Douglas.  And  now  it  has  become  the  catchword  of  the 
entire  party.  I  would  like  to  call  upon  his  friends  everywhere 
to  consider  how  they  have  come  in  so  short  a  time  to  view  this 
matter  in  a  way  so  entirely  different  from  their  former  belief? 
to  ask  whether  they  are  not  being  borne  along  by  an  irresisti 
ble  current — whither,  they  know  not  ? 

In  answer  to  my  proposition  at  Galesburgh,  last  week,  I 
see  that  some  man  in  Chicago  has  got  up  a  letter,  addressed  to 
the  Chicago  Times,  to  show,  as  he  professes,  that  somebody  had 
said  so  before  ;  and  he  signs  himself  "  An  Old-Line  Whig,"  if 
I  remember  correctly  In  the  first  place,  I  would  say  he  ivas 
not  an  old-line  Whig.  I  am  somewhat  acquainted  with  old-' 
line  Whigs.  I  was  with  the  old-line  Whigs  from  the  origin 
to  the  end  of  that  party;  I  became  pretty  well  acquainted 
with  them,  and  I  know  they  always  had  some  sense,  whatever 
else  you  could  ascribe  to  them.  I  know  there  never  was  one 
who  had  not  more  sense  than  to  try  to  show  by  the  evidence 
he  produces  that  some  man  had,  prior  to  the  time  I  named, 
said  that  negroes  were  not  included  in  the  term  u  all  men"  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  What  is  the  evidence  he 
produces  ?  I  will  bring  forward  his  evidence,  and  let  you  see 
what  he  offers  by  way  of  showing  that  somebody  more  than 
three  years  ago  had  said  negroes  were  not  included  in  the  Dec 
laration.  He  brings  forward  part  of  a  speech  from  Henry 
Clay — the  part  of  the  speech  of  Henry  Clay  which  I  used  to 
bring  forward  to  prove  precisely  the  contrary.  I  guess  we  are 
surrounded  to  some  extent  to-day  by  the  old  friends  of  Mr. 
Clay,  and  they  will  be  glad  to  hear  anything  from  that  author 
ity.  While  he  was  in  Indiana  a  man  presented  a  petition  to 
liberate  his  negroes,  and  he  (Mr.  Clay)  made  a  speech  in  an 
swer  to  it,  which  1  suppose  he  carefully  wrote  out  himself  and 


236  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

• 

caused  to  be  published.  I  have  before  me  an  extract  from 
that  speech,  which  constitutes  the  evidence  this  pretended 
"  Old-Line  Whig"  at  Chicago  brought  forward  to  show  that 
Mr.  Clay  didn't  suppose  the  negro  was  included  in  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence,  Hear  what  Mr.  Clay  said  : 

"And  what  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in  Indi 
ana,  to  liberate  the  slaves  under  my  care  in  Kentucky?  It  is 
a  general  declaration  in  the  act  announcing  to  the  world  the 
independence  of  the  thirteen  American  colonies,  that  all  men 
are  created  equal.  Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no 
doubt  of  the  truth  of  that  declaration;  and  it  is  desirable,  in  the 
original  construction  of  society,  and  in  organized  societies,  to  keep 
it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental  principle.  But,  then,  I  ap 
prehend  that  in  no  society  that  ever  did  exist,  or  ever  shall  be 
formed,  was  or  can.  the  equality  asserted  among  the  members 
of  the  human  race,  be  practically  enforced  and  carried  out. 
There  are  portions,  large  portions,  women,  minors,  insane, 
culprits,  transient  sojourners,  that  will  always  probably  remain 
subject  to  the  government  of  another  portion  of  the  com 
munity. 

"  That  declaration,  whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  its  im 
port,  was  made  by  the  delegations  of  the  thirteen  States.  In 
most  of  them  slavery  existed,  and  had  long  existed,  and  was 
established  by  law.  It  was  introduced  and  forced  upon  the 
colonies  by  the  paramount  law  of  England.  Do.  you  believe, 
that  in  making  that  declaration  the  States  that  concurred  in  it 
intended  that  it  should  be  tortured  into  a  virtual  emancipation 
of  all  the  slaves  within  their  respective  limits?  Would  Vir 
ginia  and  other  Southern  States  have  ever  united  in  a  declara 
tion  which  was  to  be  interpreted  into  an  abolition  of  slavery 
among  them"?  Did  any  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies  entertain 
such  a  design  or  expectation?  To  impute  such  a  secret  and 
unavovved  purpose,  would  be  to  charge  a  political  fraud  upon 
the  noblest  band  of  patriots  that  ever  assembled  in  council — a 
fraud  upon  the  Confederacy  of  the  Revolution — a  fraud  upon 
the  union  of  those  States  whose  constitution  not  only  recogni 
zed  the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  but  permitted  the  importation  of 
slaves  from  Africa  until  the  year  1808." 

This  is  the  entire  quotation  brought  forward  to  prove  that 
somebody  previous  to  three  years  ago  had  said  the  negro  was 
riot  included  in  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  Declaration.  How 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  237 


does  it  do  so  ?  In  what  way  has  it  a  tendency  to  prove  that  ? 
Mr.  Clay  says  it  is  true- as  an  abstract  principle  that  all  men  are 
created  equal,  but  that  we  cannot  apply  it  practically  in  all 
cases.  He  illustrates  this  by  bringing  forward  the  cases  of 
females,  minors,  and  insane  persons,  with  whom  it  cannot  be 
enforced  ;  but  he  says  it  is  true  as  an  abstract  principle  in  the 
organization  of  society  as  well  as  in  organized  society,  and  it 
should  be  kept  in  view  as  a  fundamental  principle.  Let  me 
read  a  few  words  more  before  I  add  some  comments  of  my 
own.  Mr.  Clay  says  a  little  further  on  : 

"  I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
institution  of  slavery.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and 
deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the  parental 
government,  and  from  our  ancestors.  But  here  they  are,  and 
the  question  is,  how  can  they  be  best  dealt  with  ?  If  a  state 
of  nature  existed,  and  we  were  about  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than  I  should  be,  to 
incorporating  the  institution  of  slavery  among  its  elements." 

Now,  here  in  this  same  book — in  this  same  speech — in  this 
same  extract  brought  forward  to  prove  that  Mr.  Clay  held 
that  the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence — no  such  statement  on  his  part,  but  the  declaration 
that  it  is  agreat  fundamental  truth,  which  should  be  constantly 
kept  in  view  in  the  organization  of  society  and  in  societies  al 
ready  organized.  But  if  I  say  a  word  about  it — if  I  attempt, 
as  Mr.  Clay  said  all  good  men  ought  to  do,  to  keep  it  in  view 
— if  in  this  "  organized  society,"  I  ask  to  have  the  public  eye 
turned  upon  it — if  I  ask,  in  relation  to  the  organization  of 
new  territories,  that  the  public  eye  should  be  turned  upon  it 
— forthwith  I  am  vilified  as  you  hear  me  to-day.  What  have 
I  done,  that  I  have  not  the  license  of  Henry  Clay's  illustrious 
example  here  in  doing"?  Have  I  done  aught  that  I  have  not 
his  authority  for,  while  maintaining  that  in  organizing  new 
territories  and  societies,  this  fundamental  principle  should  be 
regarded,  and  in  organized  society  holding  it  up  to  the  public 
view  and  reorganizing  what  he  recognized  as  the  great  prin 
ciple  of  free  government "? 

And  when  this  new  principle — this  new  proposition  that  no 
human  being  ever  thought  of  three  years  ago — is  brought  for 
ward,  /  combat  it  as  having  an  evil  tendency,  if  not  an-  evil  de 
sign.  I  combat  it  as  having  a  tendency  to  dehumanize  the 


238  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

negro — to  take  away  from  him  the  right  of  ever  striving  to  be 
a  man.  I  combat  it  as  being  one  of  the  thousand  things  con 
stantly  done  in  these  days  to  prepare  the  public  mind  to  make 
property,  and  nothing  but  property,  of  the  negro  in  all  the 
States  of  this  Union. 

But  there  is  a  point  that  I  wish,  before  leaving  this  part  of 
the  discussion,  to  ask  attention  to.  I  have  read  and  I  repeat 
the  words  of  Henry  Clay  : 

"  I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
institution  of  slavery.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and 
deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the  parental 
government  and  from  our  ancestors.  I  wish  every  slave  in  the 
United  States  was  in  the  country  of  his  ancestors.  But  here 
they  are  ;  the  question  is  how  they  can  best  be  dealt  with  *?  If 
a  state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were  about  to  lay  the  foun 
dations  of  society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed 
than  I  should  be,  to  incorporate  the  institution  of  slavery  among 
its  elements." 

The  principle  upon  which  I  have  insisted  in  this  canvass,  is 
in  relation  to  laying  the  foundations  of  new  societies.  I  have 
never  sought  to  apply  these  principles  to  the  old  States,  for 
the  purpose  of  abolishing  slavery  in  those  States.  It  is  noth 
ing  but  a  miserable  perversion  of  what  I  have  said,  to  assume 
that  I  have  declared  Missouri,  or  any  other  slave  State,  shall 
emancipate  her  slaves.  I  have  proposed  no  such  thing.  But 
when  Mr.  Clay  says  that  in  laying  the  foundations  of  societies 
in  our  territories  where  it  does  not  exist,  he  would  be  op 
posed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery  as  an  element,  I  insist 
that  we  have  his  warrant — his  license  for  insisting  upon  the 
exclusion  of  that  element  which  he  declared  in  such  strong  and 
emphatic  language  icas  most  hateful  to  him. 

judge  Douglas  has  again  referred  to  a  Springfield  speech  in 
which  I  said  "  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand." 
The  Judge  has  so  often  made  the  entire  quotation  from  that 
speech  that  I  can  make  it  from  memory  I  used  this  lan 
guage  : 

"  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was 
initiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of 
putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation 
of  this  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
constantly  augmented.  In  my  Opinion  it  will  not  cease  until 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  239 


a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  (  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government  can 
not  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other. 
Esther  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread 
of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  be 
lief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advo 
cates  will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in 
all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

That  extract  and  the  sentiments  expressed  in  it,  have  been 
extremely  offensive  to  Judge  Douglas.  He  has  warred  upon 
them  as  Satan  wars  upon  the  Bible.  His  perversions  upon  it 
are  endless.  Here  now  are  my  views  upon  it  in  brief. 

I  said  we  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was 
initiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of 
putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Is  it  not  so  I  When 
that  Nebraska  bill  was  brought  forward  four  years  ago  last 
January,  was  it  not  for  the  "  avowed  object  "  of  putting  an 
end  to  the  slavery  agitation  ?  We  were  to  have  no  more  agi 
tation  in  Congress — it  was  all  to  be  banished  to  the  territories. 
By  the  way,  I  will  remark  here  that,  as  Judge  Douglas  is 
very  fond  of  complimenting  Mr.  Crittenden  in  these  days,  Mr. 
Crittenden  has  said  there  was  a  falsehood  in  that  whole 
business,  for  there  was  no  slavery  agitation  at  the  time  to  allay. 
We  were  for  a  little  while  quiet  on  the  troublesome  thing,  and 
that  very  allaying  plaster  of  Judge  Douglas'  stirred  it  up 
again.  But  was  it  not  understood  or  intimated  with  the 
"  confident  promise  "  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agita 
tion?  Surely  it  was.  In  every  speech  you  heard  Judge 
Douglas  make,  until  he  got  into  this  "  imbroglio,"  as  they 
call  it,  with  the  administration  about  the  Lecompton  consti 
tution,  every  speech  on  that  Nebraska  bill  was  full  of  his 
felicitations  that  we  were  just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery  agita 
tion.  The  last  tip  of  the  last  joint  of  the  old  serpent's  tail 
was  just  drawing  out  of  view.  But  has  it  proved  so1?  I 
have  asserted  that  under  that  policy  that  agitation  "  has  not 
only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented."  When  was 
there  ever  a  greater  agitation  in  Congress  than  last  winter  ? 
When  was  it  as  great  in  the  country  as  to-day"? 

There  was  a  collateral   object  in  the  introduction  of  that 


240  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Nebraska  policy  which  was  to  clothe  the  people  of  the 
territories  with  a  superior  degree  of  self-government,  beyond 
what  they  had  ever  had  before.  The  first  object,  and  the 
main  one,  of  conferring  upon  the  people  a  higher  degree 
of  "  self-government,"  is  a  question  of  fact  to  be  determined 
by  you  in  answer  to  a  single  question.  Have  you  ever  heard 
or  known  of  a  people  anywhere  on  earth  who  had  as  little  to 
do,  as,  in  the  first  instance  of  its  use,  the  people  of  Kansas 
had  with  this  same  right  of  "  self-government  ?"  In  its  main 
policy,  and  in  its  collateral  object,  it  has  been  nothing  but  a  liv 
ing,  creeping  lie  from  the  time  of  its  introduction  till  to-day. 

I  have  intimated  that  I  thought  the  agitation  would  not 
cea*e  until  a  crisis  should  have  been  reached  and  passed.  I 
have  stated  in  what  way  I  thought  it  would  b3  reached  and 
passed.  I  have  said  that  it  might  go  one  way  or  the  other. 
We  might,  by  arresting  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  placing 
it  where  the  fathers  originally  placed  it,  put  it  where  the 
public  mind  should  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction.  Thus  the  agitation  may  cease.  It 
may  be  pushed  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in 
all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South. 
I  have  said,  and  I  repeat,  my  wish  is  that  the  further  spread 
of  it  may  be  arrested,  and  that  it  may  be  placed  where  the 
public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course 'of 
ultimate  extinction.  I  have  expressed  that  as  my  wish.  I 
entertain  the  opinion  upon  evidence  sufficient  to  my  mind, 
tlir.t  the  fathers  of  this  government  placed  that  institution 
where  the  public  mind  did  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Let  me  ask  wrhy  they  made 
provision  that  the  source  of  slavery — the  African  slave- 
trade — should  be  cut  off  at  the  end  of  twenty  years  ?  Why 
did  they  make  provision  that  in  all  the  new  territory  we  owned 
at  that  time,  slavery  should  be  forever  inhibited?  Why  stop 
its  spread  in  one  direction,  and  cut  off  its  source  in  another, 
if  they  did  not  look  to  its  being  placed  in  the  course  of  ulti 
mate  extinction  t 

Again  ;  the  institution  of  slavery  is  only  mentioned  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  two  or  three  timeSj  and  in 
neither  of  these  cases  does  the  word  "slavery"  or  "  negro 
race"  occur;  but  covert  language  is  used  each  time,  and  for 
a  purpose  full  of  significance.  What  is  the  language  in  re- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  241 

gard  to  the  prohibition  of  the  African  slave-trade  ?  It  runs 
in  about  this  way:  "The  migration  or  importation  of  such 
persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper 
to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the 
year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight." 

The  next  allusion  in  the  Constitution  to  the  question  of 
slavery  and  the  black  race,  is  on  the  subject  of  the  basis  of 
representation,  and  there  the  language  used  is,  "Representa 
tives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according 
to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  ad 
ding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those 
bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians 
not  taxed — three  fifths  of  all  other  persons."  <& 

It  says  "  persons,"  not  slaves,  not  negroes ;  but  this 
"  three  fifths"  can  be  applied  to  no  other  class  among  us  than 
the  negroes. 

Lastly,  in  the  provision  for  the  reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves, 
it  is  said  :  * '  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State, 
under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  conse 
quence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from 
such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due."  There 
again  there  is  no  mention  of  the  word  "  negro"  or  of  slavery. 
I;  i  all  three  of  these  places,  being  the  only  allusions  to  slavery 
in  the  instrument,  covert  language  is  used.  Language  is  used 
not  suggesting  that  slavery  existed  or  that  the  black  race  were 
among  us.  And  I  understand  the  contemporaneous  history  of 
those  times  to  be  that  covert  language  was  used  with  a  pur 
pose,  and  that  purpose  was  that  in  our  Constitution,  whii;h  it 
was  hoped  and  is  still  hoped  will  endure  forever — when  it 
should  be  read  by  intelligent  and  patriotic  men,  after  the  in 
stitution  of  slavery  had  passed  from  among  us — there  should 
be  nothing  on  the  face  of  the  great  charter  of  liberty  suggest 
ing  that  such  a  thing  as  negro  slavery  had  ever  existed  among 
us.  This  is  part  of  the  evidence  that  the  fathers  of  the  gov 
ernment  expected  and  intended  the  institution  of  slavery  to 
cotne  to  an  end.  They  expected  arid  intended  that  it  should 
be  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  And  when  I  say  that 
1  desire  to  see  the  further  spread  of  it  arrested,  I  only  say  I 
desire  to  see  that  done  which  the  fathers  have  first  done. 

11 


242  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

When  I  say  I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where  the  public  mind 
will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  ex 
tinction,  I  only  say  I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where  they  placed 
it.  It  is  not  true  that  our  fathers,  as  Judge  Douglas  assumes, 
made  this  government  part  slave  and  part  free.  Understand 
the  sense  in  which  he  put  sit.  He  assumes  that  slavery  is  a  right 
ful  thing  within  itself — was  introduced  by  the  frarriers  of  the 
Constitution  The  exact  truth  is  that  they  found  the  institu 
tion  existing  among  us,  and  they  left  it  as  they  found  it.  But 
in  making  the  government  they  left  this  institution  with  many 
clear  marks  of  disapprobation  upon  it.  They  found  slavery 
among  them,  and  they  left  it  among  them  because  of  the  dif 
ficulty —  the  absolute  impossibility  of  its  immediate  removal. 
And  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  we  cannot  let  it  re 
main  part  slave  and  part  free,  as  the  fathers  of  the  govern 
ment  made  it,  he  asks  a  question  based  upon  an  assumption 
which  is  itself  a  falsehood  ;  and  1  turn  upon  him  and  ask  him 
the  question,  when  the  policy  that  the  fathers  of  the  govern 
ment  had  adopted  in  relation  to  this  element  among  us  was  the 
best  policy  in  the  world — the  only  wise  policy — the  only  poli 
cy  that  we  can  ever  safely  continue  upon — that  will  ever  give 
us  peace,  unless  this  dangerous  element  masters  us  all  and  be 
comes  a  national  institution — /  turn  upon  him  and  a±k  him  u-/i// 
he  could  not  leave  it  alone  ?  I  turn  and  ask  him  why  he  was 
driven  to  the  necessity  of  introducing  a  new  policy  in  regard  to 
it?  He  has  himself  said  he  introduced  a  new  policy.  He  said 
so  in  his  speech  on  the  22d  of  March  of  the  present  year, 
1858.  I  ask  him  why  he  could  not  let  it  remain  where  our 
fathers  placed  it  ?  I  a:fc,  too,  of  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends 
why  we  shall  not  again  place  this  institution  upon  the  basis  on 
which  the  fathers  left  it  ?  I  ask  you,  when  he  infers  that  I  am 
in  favor  of  setting  the  free  and  slave  States  at  war,  when  the 
institution  was  placed  in  that  attitude  by  those  who  made  the 
Constitution  did  they  make  any  war  ?  If  we  had  no  vrar  out 
of  it,  when  thus  placed,  when  in  is  the  ground  of  belief  that 
we  shall  have  war  out  of  it,  if  we  return  to  that  policy "? 
Have  we  had  any  peace  upon  this  matter  springing  from  any 
other  basis  ?  I  maintain  that  we  have  not.  I  have  proposed 
nothing  more  than  a  return  to  the  policy  of  the  fathers. 

I  confess,  when  I  propose  a  certain  measure  of  policy,  it  is 
not  enough  for  me  that  I  do  not  intend  anything  evil  in  the 
result,  but  it  is  incumbent  on  me  to  show  that  it  has  not  a 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  243 


tendency  to  that  result.  I  have  met  Judge  Douglas  in  that 
point  of  view.  I  Lave  not  only  made  the  declaration  that  I 
do  not  mean  to  produce  a  conflict  between  the  States,  but  I 
have  tried  to  show  by  fair  reasoning,  and  I  think  I  have 
shown  to  the  minds  of  fair  men,  that  I  propose  nothing  but 
what  has  a  most  peaceful  tendency.  The  quotation  that'I 
happened  to  make  in  that  Springfield  speech,  that  "a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  and  which  has  proved  so 
offensive  to  the  Judge,  was  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  thing. 
He  tries  to  show  that  variety  in  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  different  States  is  necessary  and  indispensable.  I  do  not 
dispute  it.  I  have  no  controversy  with  Judge  Douglas  about 
that,  I  shall  very  readily  agree  with  him  that  it  would  be 
foolish  for  us  to  insist  upon  having  a  cranberry  law  here,  in 
Illinois,  where  we  have  no  cranberries,  because  they  have  a 
cranberry  law  in  Indiana,  where  they  have  cranberries.  I 
should  insist  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  wrong  in  us  to  deny 
to  Virginia  the  right  to  enact  oyster  laws,  where  they  have 
oysters,  because  we  want  no  such  laws  here.  I  understand,  I 
hope,  quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody  else,  that 
the  variety  in  the  soil  and  climate  and  face  of  the  country, 
and  consequent  variety  in  the  industrial  pursuits  and  produc 
tions  of  a  country,  require  s}7sterns  of  law  conforming  to.  this 
variety  in  the  natural  features  of  the  country,  i  understand, 
quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  that  if  we  here  raise  a  barrel 
of  flour  more  than  we  want,  and  the  Louisianians  raise  a  bar 
rel  of  sugar  more  than  they  want,  it  is  of  mutual  advantage  to 
exchange.  That  produces  commerce,  brings  us  together,  and 
makes  us  better  friends.  We  like  one  another  the  more  for  it. 
And  I  understand,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody  else, 
that  these  mutual  accommodations  are  the  cements  which 
bind  together  the  different  parts  of  this  Union — that  instead 
of  being  a  thing  to  ''divide  the  house" — figuratively  express 
ing  the  Union — they  tend  to  sustain  it ;  they  are  the  props  of 
the  house  tending  always  to  hold  it  up. 

But  when  I  have  admitted  all  this,  I  ask  if  there  is  any 
parallel  between  these  things  arid  this  institution  of  slavery  ? 
I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  parallel  at  all  between  them. 
Consider  it.  When  have  we  had  any  difficulty  or  quarrel 
among  ourselves  about  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana,  or  the 
oyster  laws  of  Virginia,  or  the  pine  lumber  laws  of  Maine,  or 


244  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES     OF 

the  fact  that  Louisiana  produces  sugar,  and  Illinois  flour  ? 
When  have  we  had  any  quarrels  over  these  things  ?  When 
have  we  had  perfect  peace  in  regard  to  this  thing  which  I  say 
is  an  element  of  discord  in  this  Union  1  We  have  sometimes 
had  peace,  but  when  was  it  ?  It  was  when  the  institution  of 
slavery  remained  quiet  where  it  was.  We  have  had  difficulty 
and  turmoil  whenever  it  has  made  a  struggle  to  spread  itself 
where  it  was  not.  I  ask,  then,  if  experience  does  not  speak 
in  thunder-tones,  telling  us  that  the  policy  which  has  given 
peace  to  the  country  heretofore,  being  returned  to,  gives  the 
greatest  promise  of  peace  again.  You  may  say,  and  Judge 
Douglas  has  intimated  the  same  thing,  that  all  this  difficulty 
in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  is  the  mere  agitation  of 
office-seekers  and  ambitious  northern  politicians.  He  thinks 
we  want  to  get  "  his  place,"  I  suppose.  I  agree  that  there 
are  office-seekers  among  us.  The  Bible  says  somewhere  that 
we  are  desperately  selfish.  I  think  we  would  have  discovered 
that  fact  without  the  Bible.  I  dt>  not  claim  that  I  am  any 
less  so  than  the  average  of  men,  but  I  do  claim  that  I  am  not 
more  selfish  than  Judge  Douglas. 

But  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty  and  agitation  we  have  in 
regard  to  this  institution  of  slavery  springs  from  office-seeking 
— from  the  mere  ambition  of  politicians  ?  Is  that  the  truth  ? 
How  many  times  have  we  had  danger  from  this  question  ? 
Go  back  to  the  day  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Go  back 
to  the  Nullification  question,  at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  this 
same  slavery  question.  Go  back  to  the  time  of  the  Annexa 
tion  of  Texas.  Go  back  to  the  troubles  that  led  to  the  Com 
promise  of  1850.  You  will  find  that  every  time,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  Nullification  question,  they  sprung 
from  an  endeavor  to  spread  this  institution.  .There  never  was 
a  party  in  the  history  of  this  country,  and  there  probably 
never  will  be,  of  sufficient  strength  to  disturb  the  general 
peace  of  the  country.  Parties  themselves  may  be  divided  and 
quarrel  on  minor  questions,  yet  it  extends  not  beyond  the 
parlies  themselves.  But  does  not  this  question  make  a  dis 
turbance  outside  of  political  circles?  Docs  it  not  enter  into 
the  churches  and  rend  them  asunder  ?  What  divided  the 
great  Methodist  Church  into  two  parts,  North  and  South  ? 
What  has  raised  this  constant  disturbance  in  every  Presby 
terian  General  Assembly  that  meets'?  What  disturbed  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  245 

Unitarian  Church  in  this  very  city  two  years  ago  ?  What 
has  jarred  and  shaken  the  great  American  Tract  Society  re 
cently,  not  yet  splitting  it,  but  sure  to  divide  it  in  the  end  ? 
Is  it  not  this  same  mighty,  deep-seated  power,  that  somehow 
operates  on  the  minds  of  men,  exciting  and  stirring  them  up 
in  every  avenue  of  society — in  politics,  in  religion,  in  litera 
ture,  in  morals,  in  all  the  manifold  relations  of  life  t  Is  this 
the  work  of  politicians  ?  Is  that  irresistible  power,  which  for 
fifty  years  has  shaken  the  government  and  agitated  the  people 
to  be  stilled  and  subdued  by  pretending  that  it  is  an  exceed 
ingly  simple  thing,  and  we  ought  not  to  talk  about  it  ?  If 
you  will  get  everybody  else  to  stop  talking  about  it,  I  assure 
you  I  will  quit  before  they  have  half  done  so.  But  where  is 
the  philosophy  or  statesmanship  which  assumes  that  you  can 
quiet  that  disturbing  element  in  our  society  which  has  dis 
turbed  us  for  more  than  half  a  century,  which  has  been  the 
only  serious  danger  that  has  threatened  our  institutions — I 
say,  where  is  the  philosophy  or  the  statesmanship  based  on  the 
assumption  that  we  are  to  quit  talking  about  it,  and  that  the 
public  mind  is  all  at  once  to  cease  being  agitated  by  it  *  Yet 
this  is  the  policy  here  in  the  north  that  Douglas  is  advocating 
— that  we  are  to  care  nothing  about  it !  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not 
a  false  philosophy  I  Is  it  not  a  false  statesmanship  that  un 
dertakes  to  build  up  a  system  of  policy  upon  the  basis  of 
caring  nothing  about  the  very  thing  that  everybody  does  care  the 
most  about  ? — a  thing  which  all  experience  has  shown  we  care 
a  very  great  deal  about  ? 

The  Judge  alludes  very  often  in  the  course  of  his  remarks 
to  the  exclusive  right  which  the  States  have  to  decide  the 
whole  thing  for  themselves.  I  agree  with  him  very  readily 
that  the  different  States  have  that  right.  He  is  but  fighting  a 
man  of  straw  when  he  assumes  that  I  am  contending  against 
the  right  of  the  States  to  do  as  they  please  about  it.  Our  con 
troversy  with  him  is  in  regard  to  the  new  territories.  We 
agree  that  when  the  States  come  in  as  States  they  have  the 
right  and  the  power  to  do  as  they  please.  We  have  no  power 
as  citizens  of  the  free  States  or  in  our  federal  capacity  as 
members  of  the  Federal  Union  through  the  general  govern 
ment,  to  disturb  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  We 
profess  constantly  that  we  have  no  more  inclination  than 
belief  in  the  power  of  the  government  to  disturb  it ;  yet  we 


246  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

arc  driven  constantly  to  defend  ourselves  from  the  assumption 
that  we  are  warring  upon  the  rights  of  the  Suites.  What  I 
insist  upon  is,  that  the  new  territories  shall  be  kept  free  from 
it  while  in  the  territorial  condition.  Judge  Douglas  assumes 
that  we  have  no  interest  in  them — that  we  have  no  right 
whatever  to  interfere.  I  think  we  have  some  interest.  I 
think  that  as  white  men  we  have.  Do  we  not  wish  for  an 
outlet  for  our  surplus  population,  if  I  may  so  express  myself? 
Do  we  not  feel  an  interest  in  getting  to  that  outlet  with  such 
institutions  as  we  would  like  to  have  prevail  there  f  If  you 
go  to  the  territory  opposed  to  slavery,  and  another  man  comes 
upon  the  same  ground  with  his  slave,  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  things  are  equal,  it  turns  out  that  he  has  the  equal 
right  all  his  way  and  you  have  no  part  of  it  your  way.  If  he 
goes  in  and  makes  it  a  slave  territory,  and  by  consequence  a 
slave  State,  is  it  not  time  that  those  who  desire  to  have  it  a 
free  State  were  on  equal  ground.  Let  me  suggest  it  in  a  dif 
ferent  way.  How  many  Democrats  are  about  here  ["  A  thou 
sand"]  who  have  left  slave  States  and  come  into  the  free 
State  of  Illinois  to  get  rid  of  the  institution  of  slavery? 
[Another  voice — "A  thousand  and  one."]  1  reckon  there 
are  a  thousand  and  one.  I  will  ask  you,  if  the  policy  you  are 
now  advocating  had  prevailed  when  this  country  was  in  a 
territorial  condition,  where  would  you  have  gone  to  get  rid  of 
it  1  Where  would  you  have  found  your  free,  State  or  terri 
tory  to  go  to  ?  And  when  hereafter,  for  any  cause,  the  peo 
ple  in  this  place  shall  desire  to  find  new  homes,  if  they  wish  to 
be  rid  of  the  institution,  where  will  they  rind  the  place  to 
go  to  ? 

Now,  irrespective  of  the  moral  aspect  of  this  question  as  to 
whether  there  is  a  right  or  wrong  in  enslaving  a  negro,  I  am 
still  in  favor  of  our  new  territories  being  in  such  a  condition 
that  white  men  may  find  a  home — may  find  some  spot  where 
they  can  better  their  condition — where  they  can  settle  upon 
new  soil  and  better  their  condition  in  life.  I  am  in  favor  of 
this  not  merely  (I  must  say  it  here  as  I  have  elsewhere)  for 
our  own  people  who  are  born  among  us,  but  as  an  outlet  for 
free  white  people  eveiywhere,  the  world  over — in  which  Huns, 
and  Baptiste,  and  Patrick,  and  all  other  men  from  all  the 
world,  may  find  new  homes  and  better  their  conditions  in  life. 

I  have  stated  on  former  occasions,  and  I  may  as  well  state 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  247 


again,  what  I  understand  to  be  the  real  issue  in  this  contro 
versy  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself.  On  the  point  of 
my  wanting  to  make  war  between  the  free  and  the  slave 
States,  there  has  been  no  issue  between  us.  So,  too,  when  he 
assumes  that  I  am  in  favor  of  introducing  a  perfect  social  and 
political  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races  These  are 
false  issues,  upon  which  Judge  Douglas  has  tried  to  force  the 
controversy.  There  is  no  foundation  in  truth  for  the  charge 
that  I  maintain  either  of  these  propositions.  The  real  issue  in 
this  controversy — the  one  pressing  upon  every  mind — is  the 
sentiment  on  the  part  of  one  class  that  looks  upon  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery  as  a  wrong,  and  of  another  class  that  does  not 
look  upon  it  as  a  wrong.  The  sentiment  that  contemplates  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  this  country  as  a  wrong,  is  the  senti 
ment  of  the  Republican  party.  It  is  the  sentiment  around 
which  all  their  actions  —  all  their  arguments  circle — from, 
which  all  their  propositions  radiate.  They  look  upon  it  as 
being  a  moral,  social,  and  political  wrong;  and  while  they 
contemplate  it  as  such,  they  nevertheless  have  due  regard  for 
its  actual  existence  among  us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid 
of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way  and  to  all  the  constitutional 
obligations  thrown  about  it.  Yet  having  a  due  regard  for  these, 
they  desire  a  policy  in  regard  to  it  that  looks  to  its  not  creat 
ing  any  more  danger.  They  insist  that  it  should,  as  far  as  may 
be,  be  treated  as  a  wrong,  and  one  of  the  methods  of  treating  it 
as  a  wrong  is  to  make  provision  that  it  shall  grow  no  larger. 
They  also  desire  a  policy  that  looks  to  a  peaceful  end  of 
slavery  at  sometime,  as  being  wrong.  These  are  the  views 
they  entertain  in  regard  to  it,  as  I  understand  them ;  and  all 
their  sentiments — all  their  arguments  and  propositions  are 
brought  within  this  range.  I  have  said  and  I  repeat  it  here, 
that  if  there  be  a  man  among  us  who  does  not  think  that 
the  institution  of  slavery  is  wrong  in  any  one  of  the 
aspects  of  which  I  have  spoken,  he  is  misplaced  and  ought  not 
to  be  with  us.  And  if  there  be  a  man  among  us  who  is  so 
impatient  of  it  as  a  wrong  as  to  disregard  its  actual  presence 
among  us  and  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid  of  it  suddenly  in  a 
satisfactory  way,  and  to  disregard  the  constitutional  obligations 
thrown  about  it,  that  man  is  misplaced  if  he  is  on  our  plat 
form.  We  disclaim  sympathy  with  him  in  practical  action. 
He  is  not  placed  properly  with  us. 


248  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

On  this  subject  of  treating  it  as  a  wrong,  an<l  limiting  its 
spread  let  me  say  a  word.  Has  anything  ever  threatened  tho 
existence  of  this  Union  save  and  except  this  very  institution  of 
slavery1?  What  is  it  that  we  hold  most  dear  among  us? 
Our  own  liberty  and  prosperity.  "What  has  ever  threatened 
our  liberty  and  prosperity  save  and  except  this  institution  of 
slavery?  If  this  is  true,  how  do  you 'propose  to  improve  the 
condition  of  things  by  enlarging  slavery — by  spreading  it  out 
and  making  it  bigger?  You  may  have  a  wen  or  cancer  upon 
your  person  and  not  be  able  to  cut  it  out  lest  you  bleed  to 
death  ;  but  surely  it  is  no  way  to  cure  it,  to  engraft  it  and 
spread  it  over  your  whole  body.  That  is  no  proper  way  of 
treating  what  you  regard  a  wrong.  You  see  this  peaceful 
way  of  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong — restricting  the  spread  of 
it,  and  riot  allowing  it  to  go  into  new  countries  where  it  has 
not  already  existed.  This  is  the  peaceful  way,  the  old-fashioned 
way,  the  way  in  which  the  fathers  themselves  set  us  the  example. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  said  there  is  a  sentiment  which 
treats  it  as  not  being  wrong.  That  is  the  Democratic  senti 
ment  of  this  day.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  every  irian  who 
stands  within  that  range  positively  asserts  that  it  is  right. 
That  class  will  include  all  who  positively  assert  that  it  is  right, 
and  all  who,  like  Judge  Douglas,  treat  it  as  indifferent  and  do 
not  say  it  is  either  right  or  wrong.  These  two  classes  of  men  fall 
within  the  general  class  of  those  who  do  not  look  upon  it  as  a 
wrong.  Arid  if  there  be  among  you  anybody  who  suppose 
that  he,  as  a  Democrat,  can  consider  himself  "  as  much  op 
posed  to  slavery  as  anybody,"  I  would  like  to  reason  with 
him.  You  never  treat  it  as  a  wrong.  What  other  thing  that 
you  consider  as  a  wrong,  do  you  deal  with  as  you  deal  with 
that?  Perhaps  you  &ay  it  is  wrong,  but  your  leader  never  does, 
and  you  quarrel  with  anybody  who  says  it  is  wrong.  Although 
you  pretend  to  say  so  yourself,  you  can  find  no  fit  place  to 
deal  with  it  as  a  wrong.  You  must  not  say  anything  about 
it  in  the  free  States,  because  it  is  not  here.  You  must  not  say 
anything  about  it  in  the  slave  States,  because  it  is  there.  You 
must  not  say  anything  about  it  in  the  pulpit,  because  that  is 
religion  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  You  must  not  say 
anything  about  it  in  politics,  because  that  will  disturb  the  secu 
rity  of  "  my  place ."  There  is  no  place  to  talk  about  it  as 
being  a  wrong,  although  you  say  yourself  it  is  a  wrong.  But 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  249 

finally  you  will  screw  yourselPup  to  the  belief  that  if  the 
people  of  the  slave  States  should  adopt  a  system  of  gradual 
emancipation  on  the  slavery  question,  you  would  be  in  favor 
of  it.  You  would  be  in  favor  of  it.  You  say  that  is  getting 
it  in  the  right  place,  and  you  would  be  glad  to  see  it  succeed. 
But  you  are  deceiving  yourself.  You  all  know  that  Frank 
Blair  and  Gratz  Brown,  down  there  in  St.  Louis,  undertook 
to  introduce  that  system  in  Missouri.  They  fought  as  val 
iantly  as  they  could  for  the  system  of  gradual  emancipation 
which  you  pretend  you  would  be  glad  to  see  succeed.  Now 
I  will  bring  you  to  the  test.  After  a  hard  fight  they  were 
beaten,  and  when  the  news  came  over  here  you  threw  up  your 
hats  and  hurrahed  for  Democracy.  More  than  that,  take  all 
the  argument  made  in  favor  of  the  system  you  have  proposed, 
and  it  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  anything  wrong 
in  the  institution  of  slavery.  The  arguments  to  sustain  that 
policy  carefully  excluded  it.  Even  here,  to-day,  you  heard 
Judge  Douglas  quarrel  with  me  because  I  uttered  a  wish  that 
it  might  sometime  come  to  an  end.  Although  Henry  Clay 
could  say  he  wished  every  slave  in  the  United  States  was  in 
the  country  of  his  ancestors,  I  am  denounced  by  those  pre 
tending  to  respect  Henry  Clay  for  uttering  a  wish  that  it 
might  sometime,  in  some  peaceful  way,  come  to  an  end.  The 
Democratic  policy  in  regard  to  that  institution  will  not  tol 
erate  the  merest  breath,  the  slightest  hint,  of  the  least  degree 
of  wrong  about  it.  Try  it  by  some  of  Judge  Douglas'  argu 
ments.  He  says  he  "  don't  care  whether  it  is  voted  up  or 
voted  down "  in  the  territories.  I  do  not  care  myself  in 
dealing  with  that  expression,  whether  it  is  intended  to  be  ex 
pressive  Of  his  individual  sentiments  on  the  subject,  or  only  of 
the  national  policy  he  desires  to  have  established.  It  is  alike 
valuable  for  my  purpose.  Any  man  can  say  that  who  does 
not  see  anything  wrong  in  slavery,  but  no  man  can  logically 
say  it  who  does  see  a  wrong  in  it ;  because  no  man  can 
logically  say  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is  voted  up  or 
voted  down.  He  may  say  he  don't  care  whether  an  inditfer- 
ent  thing  is  voted  up  or  down,  but  he  must  logically  have  a 
choice  between  a  right  thing  and  a  wrong  thing.  He  contends 
that  whatever  community  wants  slaves  has  a  right  to  have 
them.  ••  So  they  have  if  it  is  not  a  wrong.  But  if  it  is  a 
wrong,  he  cannot  say  people  have  a  right  to  do  wrong.  He 

11 


250  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

says  that  upon  the  scpre  o/  equality,  slaves  should  be  allowed 
to  go  in  a  new  territory,  like  other  property.  This  is  strictly 
logical  if  there  is  no  difference  between  it  and  other  property. 
If  it  and  other  property  are  equal,  his  argument  is  entirely 
logical.  But  if  you  insist  that  one  is  wrong  and  the  other 
right,  there  is  no  use  to  institute  a  comparison  between  right 
and  wrong.  You  may  turn  over  everything  in  the  Demo 
cratic  policy  from  beginning  to  end,  whether  in  the  shape  it 
takes  on  the  statute-book,  in  the  shape  it  takes  in  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  in  the  shape  it  takes  in  conversation,  or  the 
shape  it  takes  in  short  maxim-like  arguments — it  everywhere 
carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  it. 
That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that  will  continue 
in  this  country  when  these  poor  tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and 
myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is  the  eternal  struggle  between  these 
two  principles — right  and  wrong — throughout  the  world.  They 
are  the  two  principles  that  have  stood  face  to  face  from  the 
beginning  of  time  ;  and  will  ever  continue  to  struggle.  The 
one  is  the  common  right  of  humanity  and  the  other  the  divine 
right  of  kings.  It  is  the  same  principle,  in  whatever  shape 
it  develops  itself.  It  is  the  same  spirit  that  says,  "  You  work 
and  toil  and  earn  bread,  and  I'll  eat  it  "  No  matter  in  what 
shape  it  comes,  whether  from  the  mouth  of  a  king  who  seeks 
to  bestride  the  people  of  his  own  nation  and  live  by  the  fruit 
of  their  labor,  or  from  one  race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  en 
slaving  another  race,  it  is  the  same  tyrannical  principle.  I  was 
glad  to  express  my  gratitude  at  Quincy,  and  I  re-express  it 
here  to  Judge  Douglas — that  he  looks  to  no  end  to  the  institution 
of  slavery.  That  will  help  the  people  to  see  where  the  strug 
gle  really  is.  It  will  hereafter  place  with  us  all  men  who 
really  do  wish  the  wrong  may  have  an  end.  And  whenever 
we  can  get  rid  of  the  fog  which  obscures  the  real  question — 
when  we  can  get  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  to  avow  a 
policy  looking  to  its  perpetuation — we  can  get  out  from  among 
that  class  of  men  and  bring  them  to  the  .si>ie  of  those  who 
treat  it  as  a  wrong.  Then  there  will  soon  be  an  end  of  it, 
and  that  end  will  be  its  "ultimate  extinction."  Whenever 
the  issue  can  be  distinctly  made,  and  all  extraneous  matter 
thrown  out  so  that  men  can  fairly  see  the  real  difference  be 
tween  the  parties,  this  controversy  will  soon  be  settled,  and 
it  will  be  done  peaceably  too.  There  will  be  no  war,  no  vio- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  251 

lence.  It  will  be  placed  again  where  the  wisest  and  best  men 
of  the  world  placed  it.  Brooks  of  South  Carolina  once  de 
clared  that  when  this  Constitution  was  framed,  its  framers  did 
not  look  to  the  institution  existing  until  this  day.  When  he 
said  this,  I  think  he  stated  a  fact  that  is  fully  borne  out  by 
the  history  of  the  times.  But  he  also  said  they  were  better 
and  wiser  men  than  the  men  of  these  days ;  yet  the  men  of 
these  days  had  experience  which  they  had  not,  and  by  the 
invention  of  the  cotton-gin  it  became  a  necessity  in  this  coun 
try  that  slavery  should  be  perpetual."  I  now  say  that,  will 
ingly  or  unwillingly,  purposely  or  without  purpose,  Judge 
Douglas  has  been  the  most  prominent  instrument  in  changing 
the  position  of  the  institution  of  slavery  which  the  fathers  of  the 
government  expected  to  come  to  an  end  ere  this — and  putting 
it  -upon  Brooks'  cotton-gin  basis — placing  it  where  he  openly 
confesses  he  has  no  desire  there  shall  ever  be  an  end  of  it. 

I  understand  I  have  ten  minutes  yet.  I  will  employ  it  in 
saying  something  about  this  argument  Judge  Douglas  uses, 
while  he  sustains  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  the  people  of 
the  territories  can  still  somehow  exclude  slavery.  The  first 
thing  I  ask  attention  to  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  con 
stantly  said,  before  the  decision,  that  whether  they  could  or 
not,  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court.  But  after  the  court 
has  made  the  decision  he  virtually  says  it  is  not  a  question  for 
the  Supreme  Court,  but  for  the  people.  And  how  is  it  he 
tells  us  they  can  exclude  it?  He  says  it  needs  "police  regu 
lations,"  and  that  admits  of  "  unfriendly  legislation."  Although 
it  is  a  right  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  to  take  a  slave  into  a  territory  of  the  United  States 
and  hold  him  as  property,  yet  unless  the  territorial  legis 
lature  will  give  friendly  legislation,  and,  more  especially, 
if  they  adopt  unfriendly  legislation,  they  can  practically  ex 
clude  him.  Now,  without  meeting  this  proposition  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  I  pass  to  consider  the  real  constitutional  obli 
gation.  Let  me  take  the  gentleman  who  looks  me  in  the  face 
before  me,  and  let*  us  suppose  that  lie  is  a  memlJer  of  the  terri 
torial  legislature.  The  first  thing  he  will  do  will  be  to  swear 
that  he  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
His  neighbor  by  his  side  in  the  territory  has  slaves  and  needs 
tenitoiial  legislation  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that  constitu 
tional  right.  Can  he  withhold  the  legislation  which  his  neigh- 


252  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

bor  needs  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  right  which  is  fixed  in  his 
favor  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  he  lias 
sworn  to  support?  Can  he  withhold  it  without  violating 
his  oath  ?  And  more  especially  can  he  pass  unfriendly  legis 
lation  to  violate  his  oath"?  Why,  this  is  a  monstt-ous  sort  of 
talk  about  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States !  There  his 
never  been  as  outlandish  or  lawless  a  doctrine  from  the  mouth  of 
any  respectable  man  on  earth.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  a  constitu 
tional  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  territory  of  the  United  States. 
I  believe  the  decision  was  improperly  made  and  I  go  for  re 
versing  it.  Judge  Douglas  is  furious  against  those  who  go  for 
reversing  a  decision.  But  he  is  for  legislating  it  out  of  all 
force  while  the  law  itself  stands.  I  repeat  that  there  has  never 
been  so  monstrous  a  doctrine  uttered  from  the  mouth  of  at 
respectable  man. 

I  suppose  most  ©f  us  (I  know  it  of  myself)  believe  that  the 
people  of  the  Southern  States  are  entitled  to  a  Congressional 
Fugitive  Slave  law — that  is  a  right  fixed  in  the  Constitution. 
Bat  it  cannot  be  made  available  to  them  without  Congressional 
legislation.  In  the  Judge's  language,  it  is  a  "  barren  right" 
which  needs  legislation  before  it  can  become  efficient  and  val 
uable  to  the  persons  to  whom  it  is  guaranteed.  And  as  the 
right  is  constitutional  I  agree  that'  the  legislation  plxili  be 
granted  to  it — and  that  not  that  we  like  the  institution  of 
slavery.  We  profess  to  have  no  taste  for  running  and  catching 
niggers — at  least  I  profess  no  taste  for  that  job  at  all.  Why 
then  do  I  yield  support  to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law?  Because  I 
do  not  understand  that  the  Constitution,  whiclrguarantees  that 
right,  can  be  supported  without  it.  And  if  I  believed  that  the 
right  to  hold  a  slave  in  a  territory  was  equally  fixed  in  the 
Constitution  with  the  right  to  reclaim  fugitives,  I  should  be 
bound  to  give  it  the  legislation  necessary  to  support  it.  I  say 
that  no  man  can  deny  his  obligation  to  give  the  necessary  leg 
islation  to  support  slavery  in  a  territory,  who  believes  it  is  a 
constitutional  right  to  have  it  there.  No  man  can,  who  docs 
not  give  the  Abolitionists  an  argument  to  deny  the  obligation 
enjoined  by  the  Constitution  to  enact  a  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
Try  it  now.  It  is  the  strongest  Abolition  argument  ever 
made.  I  say  if  that  Dred  Scott  decision  is  correct,  then  the 
right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  territory  is  equally  a  constitutional 
ri^ht  with  the  right  of  a  slaveholder  to  have  his  runaway  re- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  253 

turned.  No  one  can  show  the  distinction  between  them. 
The  one  is  express,  so  that  we  cannot  deny  it.  The  other  is 
construed  to  be  in  the  Constitution,  so  that  he  who  believes 
the  decision  to  be  correct  believes  in  the  right.  And  the  man 
who  argues  that  by  unfriendly  legislation,  in  spite  of  that 
constitutional  right,  slavery  may  be  driven  from  the  territo 
ries,  cannot  avoid  furnishing  an  argument  by  which  Aboli 
tionists  may  deny  the  obligation  to  return  fugitives,  and  claim 
the  power  to  pass  laws  unfriendly  to  the  right  of  the  slave 
holder  to  reclaim  his  fugitive.  I  do  not  know  how  such  an 
argument  may  strike  a  popular  assembly  like  this,  but  I  defy 
anybody  to  go  before  a  body  of  men  whose  minds  are  educa 
ted  to  estimating  evidence  and  reasoning,  and  show  that  there 
is  an  iota  of  difference  between  the  constitutional  right  to  re 
claim  a  fugitive,  and  the  constitutional  right  to  hold  a  slave, 
in  a  territory,  provided  this  Dred  Scott  decision  is  correct. 
I  defy  any  man  to  make  an  argument,  that  will  justify  un 
friendly  legislation  to  deprive  a  slaveholder  of  his  right  to  hold 
his  slave  in  a  territory,  that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its  length, 
breadth,  and  thickness,  furnish  an  argument  for  nullifying  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law.  Why,  there  is  not  such  an  Abolitionist 
in  the  nation  as  Douglas,  after  ail. 


SPEECH  OF  ME.  LINCOLN, 

AT  COLUMBUS,  Omo,  September,  1859. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  OP  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO  :  I  cannot  fail  to 
remember  that  I  appear  for  the  first  time  before  an  audience 
in  this  now  great  State — an  audience  that  is  accustomed  to 
hear  such  speakers  as  Corvvin  and  Chase,  and  Wade,  and 
many  other  renowned  n.eri  ;  and,  rerhembering  this,  I  feel  that 
it  will  be  well  for  you,  as  for  me,  that  you  should  not  raise 
your  expectations  to  that  standard  to  which  you  would  have 
been  justified  in  raising  them  had  one  of  these  distinguished 
men  appeared  before  you.  You  would  perhaps  be  only  pre 
paring  a  disappointment  for  yourselves,  and,  as  a  consequence 
of  your  disappointment,  mortification  to  me.  I  hope,  there- 


254  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

fore,  that  you  will  commence  with  very  moderate  expecta 
tions  ;  and  perhaps,  if  you  will  give  me  your  attention,  I  shall 
be  able  to  interest  you  to  a  moderate  degree. 

Appearing  here  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  I  have  been 
somewhat  embarrassed  for  a  topic  by  way  of  introduction  to 
my  speech  ;  but  I  have  been  relieved  from  that  embarrass 
ment  by  an  introduction  which  the  Ohio  States-man  newspaper 
gave  me  this  morning.  In  this  paper  I  have  read  an  article,  in 
which,  among  other  statements,  I  find  the  following  : 

*'  In  debating  with  Senator  Douglas  during  the  memorable 
contest  of  last  fall,  Mr.  Lincoln  declared  in  favor  of  negro 
suffrage,  and  attempted  to  defend  that  yile  conception  against 
the  Little  Giant." 

I  mention  this  now,  at  the  opening  of  my  remarks,  for  the 
purpose  of  making  three  comments  upon  it.  The  first  I  have 
already  announced — it  furnishes  me  an  introductory  topic  ;  the 
second  is  to  show  that  the  gentleman  is  mistaken  ;  thirdly,  to 
give  him  an  opportunity  to  correct  it. 

Jn  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  this  matter  being  a  mistake. 
I  have  found  that  it  is  not  entirely  safe,  when  one  is  misrep 
resented  under  his  very  nose,  to  allow  the  misrepresentation  to 
go  un  contradicted  I  therefore  propose,  here  at  the  outset,  not 
only  to  say  that  this  is  a  misrepresentation,  but  to  show  con 
clusively  that  it  is  so  ;  and  you  will  bear  with  me  while  I 
read  a  couple  of  extracts  from  that  very  "memorable"  debate 
with  Judge  Douglas  last  year,  to  which  this  newspaper  refers. 
In  the  first  pitched  battle  which  Senator  Douglas  and  myself 
had,  at  the  town  of  Ottawa,  I  used  the  language  which  I  will 
now  read.  Having  been  previously  reading  an  extract,  I  con 
tinued  as  follows : 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater 
length, tbut  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all  I  have  ever  said 
in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the  black  race. 
This  is  the  whole  of  it,  and  anything  that  argues  me  into  his 
idea  of  perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the  negro,  is 
but  a  specious  and  fantastic  arrangement  of  words,  by  which 
a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I 
will  say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose 
directly  or  indirectly  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right 
to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  pur- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  255 

pose  to  introduce  political  and  social  equality  between  the 
white  and  black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between 
the  two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forbid  their 
ever  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality,  and 
inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  dif 
ference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race 
to  which  I  belong  having  the  superior  position.  I  have  never 
said  anything  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstand 
ing  all  this,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is 
not  entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enumerated  in  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence,  the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pur 
suit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  these 
as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with  Judge  Douglas,  he  is  not  my 
equal  in  many  respects — certainly  not  in  color,  perhaps  not  in 
moral  or  intellectual  endowments.  But  in  the  right  to  eat  the 
bread,  without  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand 
earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the 
equal  of  every  living  man." 

Upon  a  subsequent  occasion,  when  the  reason  for  making  a 
statement  like  this  recurred,  I  said : 

"While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day,  an  elderly  gentleman 
called  upon  me  to  know  whether  I  really  was  in  favor  of  pro 
ducing  perfect  equality  between  the  negroes  and  white  people. 
"While  I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this  occasion  to  say 
much  on  that  subject,  yet  as  the  question  was  asked  me,  I 
thought  I  would  occupy  perhaps  five  minutes  in  saying  some 
thing  in  regard  to  it.  I  will  say  then,  that  I  am  not  or  ever 
have  been  in  favor  of  bringing  about,  in  any  way,  the  social 
and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races — that  I  am 
not  or  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of 
negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  or  intermarry 
with  the  white  people ;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this 
that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and  the 
black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races 
living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And, 
inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together 
there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior,  and 
I,  as  much  as  any  other  man,  am  in  favor  of  having  the  su 
perior  position  assigned  to  the  white  race.  I  say  upon  this 
occasion  I  do  not  perceive  that  because  the  white  man  is  to 
have  the  superior  position,  the  negro  should  be  denied  every- 


256  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

thing.  I  do  not  understand  that  because  I  do  not  want  a 
negro  woman  for  a  slave,  I  must  necessarily  want  her  for  a 
wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  can  just  let  her  alone.  I  am 
now  in  my  fiftieth  year,  and  I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black 
woman  for  either  a  slave  or  a  wife.  So  it  seems  to  me  quite 
possible  for  us  to  get  along  without  making  either  slaves  or 
wives  of  negroes.  I  will  add  to  this  that  I  have  never  seen, 
to  my  knowledge,  a  man,  woman,  or  child,  who  was  in  favor 
of  producing  perfect  equality,  social  and  political,  between 
negroes  and  white  men.  I  recollect  of  but  one  distinguished 
instance  that  I  ever  heard  of  so  frequently  as  to  be  satisfied  of 
its  correctness — and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's  old 
friend,  Col.  Richard  M.  Johnson.  I  will  also  add  to  the  re 
marks  I  have  made  (for  I  am  not  going  to  enter  at 
large  upon  this  subject),  that  I  have  never  had  the  least  ap 
prehension  that  I  or  my  friends  would  marry  negroes,  if  there 
was  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it ;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and 
his  friends  seem  to  be  in  great  apprehension  lest  they  might, 
if  there  were  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him  the 
most  solemn  pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very  last  stand  by  the 
law  of  the  State,  which  forbids  the  marrying  of  white  people 
with  negroes." 

There,  my  friends,  you  have  briefly,  what  I  have,  upon, 
former  occasions,  said  upon  the  subject  to  which  this  newspa 
per,  to  the  extent  of  its  ability,  has  drawn  the  public  atten 
tion.  In  it  you  not  only  perceive,  as  a  probability,  that  in 
that  contest  I  did  not  at  any  time  say  I  was  in  favor  of  negro 
suffrage;  but  the  absolute  proof  that  twice — once  substan 
tially  and  once  expressly — I  declared  against  it.  Having 
shown  you  this,  there  remains  but  a  word  of  comment  upon 
that  newspaper  article.  It  is  this  :  that  I  presume  the  editor 
of  that  paper  is  an  honest  and  truth-loving  man,  and  that  he 
will  be  greatly  obliged  to  me  for  furnishing  him  thus  early  an 
opportunity  to  correct  the  misrepresentation  he  has  made,  be 
fore  it  has  run  so  long  that  malicious  people  can  call  him  a 
liar. 

The  Giant  himself  has  been  here  recently.  I  have  seen  a 
brief  report  of  his  speech.  If  it  were  otherwise  unpleasant 
to  me  to  introduce  the  subject  of  the  nogro  as  a  topic  for  dis 
cussion,  I  might  be  somewhat  relieved  by  the  fact  that  he 
dealt  exclusively  in  that  subject  while  he  was  here.  I  shall, 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  257 


therefore,  without  much  hesitation  or  diffidence,  enter  upon 
this  subject. 

The  American  people,  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1854, 
found  the  African  slave-trade  prohibited  by  a  law  of  Congress. 
In  a  majority  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  they  found  Afri 
can  slavery,  or  any  other  sort  of  slavery,  prohibited  by  State 
constitutions.  They  also  found  a  law  existing,  supposed  to 
he  valid,  by  which  slavery  was  excluded  from  almost  all  the 
territory  the  United  States  then  owned.  This  was  the  condition 
of  the  country,  with  reference  to  the  institution  of  slavery, 
on  the  first  of  January,  1854.  A  few  days  after  that,  a  bill 
was  introduced  into  Congress,  Avhich  ran  through  its  regular 
course  in  the  two  branches  of  the  National  Legislature,  and 
finally  passed  into  a  law  in  the  month  of  May,  by  which  the 
act  of  Congress  prohibiting  slavery  from  going  into  the  terri 
tories  of  the  United  States  was  repealed.  In  connection  with 
the  law  itself,  and,  in  fact,  in  the  terms  of  the  law,  the  then 
existing  prohibition  was  not  only  repealed,  but  there  was  a 
declaration  of  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  Congress  never  there 
after  to  exercise  any  pewer  that  they  might  have,  real  or  sup 
posed,  to  prohibit  the  extension  or  spread  of  slavery.  This 
was  a  very  .great  change  ;  for  the  law  thus  repealed  was  of 
more  than  thirty  years'  standing.  Following  rapidly  upon 
biie  heels  of  this  action  of  Congress,  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  is  made,  by  which  it  is  declared  that  Congress,  if  it  de 
sires  to  prohibit  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  territories,  has 
no  constitutional  power  to  do  so.  Not  only  so,  but  that  de 
cision  lays  down  principles,  which,  if  pushed  to  their  logical 
conclusion — I  say  pushed  to  their  logical  conclusion — would 
decide  that  the  constitutions  of  free  States,  forbidding  slavery, 
are  themselves  unconstitutional.  Mark  me,  I  do  not  say  the 
Judge  said  this,  and  let  no  man  say  I  affirm  the  Judge  used 
these  words  ;  but  I  only  say  it  is  my  opinion  that  what  they 
did  say,  if  pressed  to  its  logical  conclusion,  will  inevitably  re 
sult  thus. 

Looking  at  these  things,  the  Republican  party,  as  I  under 
stand  its  principles  and  policy,  believe  that  there  is  great  dan 
ger  of  the  institution  of  slavery  being  spread  out  and  extended, 
until  it  is  ultimately  made  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States  of  this 
Union  ;  so  believing,  to  prevent  that  incidental  and  ultimate 
consummation,  is  the  original  and  chief  purpose  of  the  Repub- 


258  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

lican  organization.  I  say  "  cliief  purpose"  of  the  Republican 
organization  ;  for  it  is  certainly  true,  that  if  the  National 
House  shall  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Republicans,  they  will 
have  to  attend  to  all  the  other  matters  of  national  house 
keeping,  as  well  as  this.  The  chief  and  real  purpose  of  the 
Republican  party  is  eminently  conservative.  It  proposes 
nothing  save  and  except  to  restore  this  government  to  its 
original  tone  in  regard  to  this  element  of  slavery,  and  there 
to  maintain  it,  looking  for  no  further  change  in  reference  to  it, 
than  that  which  the  original  framers  of  the  government  them 
selves  expected  and  looked  forward  to. 

The  chief  danger  to  this  purpose  of  the  Republican  party  is 
not  just  now  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  or  the  pas 
sage  of  a  Congressional  slave-code,  or  the  declaring^of  a  second 
Dred  Scott  decision,  making  slavery  lawful  in  all  the  States. 
These  are  not  pressing  us  just  now.  They  are  not  quite 
ready  yet.  The  authors  of  these  measures  know  that  we  are 
too  strong  for  them  ;  but  they  will  be  upon  us  in  due  time, 
and  we  will  be  grappling  with  them  hand  to  hand,  if  they  are 
not  now  headed  off.  They  are  not  now  the  chief  danger  to 
the  purpose  of  the  Republican  organization  ;  but  the  most  im 
minent  danger  that  now  threatens  that  purpose  is  the  insidious 
Douglas  popular  sovereignty.  This  is  the  miner  and  sapper. 
While  it  does  not  propose  to  revive  the  African  slave-trade, 
nor  to  pass  a  slave-code,  nor  to  make  a  second  Dred  Scott  de 
cision,  it  is  preparing  us  for  the  onslaught  and  charge  of  these 
ultimate  enemies  when  they  shall  be  ready  to  come  on  and  the 
word  of  command  for  them  to  advance  shall  be  given.  I  say 
this  Douglas  popular  sovereignty — for  there  is  a  broad  dis 
tinction,  as  I  now  understand  it,  between  that  article  and  a 
genuine  popular  sovereignty. 

I  btlicve  there  is  a  genuine  popular  sovereignty.  I  think  a 
definition  of  genuine  popular  sovereignty,  in  the  abstract, 
would  be  about  this :  That  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he 
pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things  which  exclu 
sively  concern  him.  Applied  to  government,  this  principle 
would  be,  that  a  general  government  shall  do  all  those  things 
which  pertain  to  it,  and  all  the  local  governments  shall  do 
precisely  as  they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which  ex 
clusively  concern  them.  I  understand  that  this  government  of 
the  United  States,  under  which  we  live,  is  based  upon  this 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  259 

principle  ;  and  I  am  misunderstood  if  it  is  supposed  that  I 
have  any  war  to  make  upon  that  principle. 

Now,  what  is  Judge  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  ?  It  is, 
as  a  principle,  no  other  than  that,  if  one  man  chooses  to  make 
a  slave  of  t.nother  man,  neither  that  other  man  nor  anybody 
else  has  a  right  to  object.  Applied  to  government,  as  he  seeks 
to  apply  it,  it  is  this :  If,  in  a  new  territory  into  which  a  few 
people  are  beginning  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  making  their 
homes,  they  choose  to  either  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  or 
to  establish  it  there,  however  one  or  the  other  may  affect  the 
persons  to  be  enslaved,  or  the  infinitely  greater  number  of  per 
sons  who  are  afterward  to  inhabit  that  territory,  or  the  other 
members  of  the  families  of  communities,  of  which  they  are  but 
an  incipient  member,  or  the  general  head  of  the  family  of 
States  as  parent  of  all — however  their  action  may  aifect  one 
or  the  other  of  these,  there  is  no  power  or  right  to  interfere. 
That  is  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  applied. 

He  lias  a  good  deal  of  trouble  with  popular  sovereignty. 
His  explanations  explanatory  of  explanations  explained  are  in 
terminable.  The  most  lengthy,  and,  as  I  suppose,  the  most 
maturely  considered  of  his  long  series  of  explanations,  is  his 
great  essay  in  Harper's  Magazine.  I  will  not  attempt  to  en 
ter  on  any  very  thorough  investigation  of  his  argument,  as 
there  made  and  presented.  I  will,  nevertheless,  occupy  a  good 
portion  of  your  time  here  in  drawing  your  attention  to  certain 
points  in  it.  Such  of  you  as  may  have  read  this  document 
will  have  perceived  that  the  Judge,  early  in  the  document, 
quotes  from  two  persons  as  belonging  to  the  Republican  party, 
without  naming  them,  but  who  can  readily  be  recognized  as 
being  Gov.  Seward  of  New-York  and  myself.  It  is  true,  that 
exactly  fifteen  months  ago  this  day,  I  believe,  I  for  the  first 
time  expressed  a  sentiment  upon  this  subject,  and  in  such  a 
manner  that  it  should  get  into  print,  that  the  public  might  see 
it  beyond  the  circle  of  my  hearers  ;  and  my  expression  of  it  at 
that  time  is  the  quotation  that  Judge  Douglas  makes.  He 
has  not  made  the  quotation  with  accuracy,  but  justice  to  him 
requires  me  to  say  that  it  is  sufficiently  accurate  not  to  change 
its  sense. 

The  sense  of  that  quotation  condensed  is  this — that  tjjis  sla 
very  element  is  a  durable  element  of  discord  among  us,  and 
that  we  shall  probably  not  have  perfect  peace  in  this  country 


260  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

with  it  until  it  either  masters  the  free  principle  in  our  govern 
ment,  or  is  so  far  mastered  by  the  free  principle  as  for  the  pub 
lic  mind  to  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  going  to  its  end.  This 
sentiment,  which  I  now  express  in  this  way,  was,  at  no  great 
distance  of  time,  perhaps  in  different  language,  and  in  connec 
tion  with  some  collateral  ideas,  expressed  by  Gov.  Seward. 
Judge  Douglas  has  been  so  much  annoyed  by  the  expression  of 
that  sentiment  that  he  has  constantly,  I  believe,  in  almost  all 
his  speeches  since  it  was  uttered,  been  referring  to  it.  I  find 
he  alluded  to  it  in  his  speech  here,  as  well  as  in  the  copyright 
essay.  I  do  not  now  enter  upon  this  for  the  purpose  of  ma 
king  an  elaborate  argument  to  show  that  we  were  right  in  the 
expression  of  that  sentiment.  In  other  words,  I  shall  not  stop 
to  say  all  that  might  properly  be  said  upon  this  point ;  but  I 
only  ask  your  attention  to  it  for  the  purpose  of  making  one  or 
two  points  upon  it. 

If  you  will  read  the  copyright  essay,  you  will  discover  that 
Jud'ge  Douglas  himself  says  a  controversy  between  the  Amer 
ican  colonies  and  the  government  of  Great  Britain  began  on 
the  slavery  question,  in  1699,  and  continued  from  that  time 
until  the  Revolution ;  and,  while  he  did  not  say  so,  we  all 
know  that  it  has  continned  with  more  or  less  violence  ever 
since  the  Re  volution. 

Then  we  need  not  appeal  to  history,  to  the  declarations  of 
the  framers  of  the  government,  but  we  know  from  Judge 
Douglas  himself  that  slavery  began  to  be  an  element  of  discord 
among  the  white  people  of  this  country  as  far  back  as  1099, 
or  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  ago,  or  five  generations  of  men 
— counting  thirty  years  to  a  generation.  Now,  it  would  seem 
to  me  that  it  might  have  occurred  to  Judge  Douglas,  or  any 
body  who  had  turned  his  attention  to  these  facts,  that  there 
was  something  in  the  nature  of  that  thing,  slavery,  somewhat 
durable  for  mischief  and  discord. 

There  is  another  point  I  desire  to  make  in  regard  to  this 
matter,  before  I  leave  it.  From  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu 
tion  down  to  1820  is  the  precise  period  of  our  history  when  we 
had  comparative  peace  upon  this  question — the  precise  period 
of  time  when  we  came  nearer  to  having  peace  about  it  than 
any  other  time  of  that  entire  hundred  and  :?ixtY  years,  in  which 
he  says  it  began,  or  of  the  eighty  years  of  our  own  Constitu 
tion.  Then  it  would  be  worth  our  while  to  stop  and  examine 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  261 

into  the  probable  reason  of  our  coming  nearer  to  having  peace 
then  than  at  any  other  time.  This  was  the  precise  period  of 
time  in  which  our  fathers  adopted,  and  during  which  they 
followed,  a  policy  restricting  the  spread  of  slavery,  and  the 
whole  Union  was  acquiescing  in  it.  The  whole  country  looked 
forward  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of  the  institution.  It  was 
when  a  policy  had  been  adopted  and  was  prevailing,  which  led 
all  just  and  right-minded  men  to  suppose  that  slavery  was 
gradually  coming  to  an  end,  and  that  they  might  be  quiet  about 
it,  watching  it  as  it  expired.  I  think  Judge  Douglas  might 
have  perceived  that,  too,  and  whether  he  did  or  not,  it  is 
worth  the  attention  of  fair-minded  men,  here  and  elsewhere, 
to  consider  whether  that  is  not  the  truth  of  the  case.  If  he 
had  looked  at  these  two  facts,  that  this  matter  had  been  an 
element  of  discord  for  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  among  this 
people,  and  that  the  only  comparative  peace  we  have  had 
about  it  was  when  that  policy  prevailed  in  this  government, 
which  he  now  wars  upon,  he  might  then  perhaps  have  been 
brought  to*  a  more  just  appreciation  of  what  I  said  fifteen 
months  ago — that  "  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand.  I  believe  that  this  government  cannot  endure  perma 
nently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to 
fall.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  dissolve  ;  but  I  do  expect 
it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  tiling  or 
all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the 
further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  will 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction  ; 
or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward,  until  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as 
South."  That  was  my  sentiment  at  that  time.  In  connec 
tion  with  it,  I  said,  "  we  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year, 
since  a  policy  was  inaugurated  with  the  avowed  object  and 
confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation. 
Under  the  operation  of  the  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only 
not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented."  I  now  say  to 
you  here  that  we  are  advanced  still  farther  into  the  sixth  year* 
since  that  policy  of  Judge  Douglas — that  Popular  Sovereignty 
of  his,  for  quieting  the  slavery  question — was  made  the  na 
tional  policy.  Fifteen!  months  more  have  been  added  since  I 
uttered  that  sentiment,  and  I  call  upon  you,  and  all  other 
right-minded  men,  to  say  whether  that  fifteen  months  have  be 
lied  or  corroborated  my  words 


262  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

While  I  am  here  upon  this  subject,  I  cannot  but  express 
gratitude  that  this  true  view  of  this  element  of  discord  among 
us — as  I  believe  it  is — is  attracting  more  and  more  attention. 
I  do  not  believe  that  Gov.  Seward  uttered  that  sentiment  be 
cause  I  had  done  so  before,  but  because  he  reflected  upon  this 
subject  and  saw  the  truth  of  it.  Nor  do  I  believe,  because 
Gov.  Seward  or  I  uttered  it,  that  Mr.  Hick  man  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  in  different  language,  since  that  time,  has  declared  his 
belief  in  the  utter  antagonism  which  exists  between  the  prin 
ciples  of  liberty  and  slavery.  You  see  we  are  multiplying. 
Now,  while  I  am  speaking  of  Ilickman,  let  me  say,  I  know 
but  little  about  him.  I  have  never  seen  him,  and  know 
scarcely  anything  about  the  man  ;  but  I  will  say  this  much  of 
him :  Of  all  the  anti-Lecompton  Democracy  that  have  been 
brought  to  my  notice,  he  alone  has  the  true,  genuine  ring  of 
the  metal.  And  now,  without  endorsing  anything  else  he  has 
said,  I  will  ask  this  audience  to  give  three  cheers  for  Hickman. 
[The  audience  responded  with  three  rousing  cheers  for  Hick- 
nian.] 

Another  point  in  the  copyright  essay  to  which  I  would  ask 
your  attention,  is  rather  a  feature  to  be  extracted  from  the 
whole  thing,  than  from  any  express  declaration  of  it  at  any 
point.  It  is  a  general  feature  of  that  document,  an4  indeed, 
of  all  of  Judge  Douglas's  discussions  of  this  question,  that  the 
territories  of  the  United  States  and  the  States  of  the  Union 
are  exactly  alike — that  there  is  no  difference  between  them  at  all 
—  -that  the  Constitution  applies  to  the  territories  precisely  as 
it  does  to  the  States — and  that  the  United  States  government, 
under  the  Constitution,  may  not  do  in  a  State  what  it  may  not 
do  in  a  territory,  and  what  it  must  do  in  a  State,  it  must  do 
in  a  territory.  Gentlemen,  is  that  a  true  view  of  the  case? 
It  is  necessary  for  this  squatter  sovereignty  ;  but  is  it  true  1 

Let  us  consider.  What  does  it  depend  upon1?  It  depends 
altogether  upon  the  proposition  that  the  States  must,  .without 
the  interference  of  the  general  government,  do  all  those  things 
that  pertain  exclusively  to  themselves — that  are  local  in  their 
nature,  that  have  no  connection  with  the  general  g  vernment. 
Alter  Judge  Douglas  has  established  this  proposi  ion,  which 
nobody  disputes  or  ever  has  disputed,  he  proceeds  to  assume, 
without  proving  it,  that  slavery  is  one  of  those  little,  unim 
portant,  trivial  matters,  which  are  of  just  about  as  much  con- 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  263 


sequence  as  the  question  would  be  to  me,  whether  my  neighbor 
should  raise  horned  cattle  or  plant  tobacco ;  that  there  is  no 
moral  question  about  it,  but  that  it  is  altogether  a  matter  of 
dollars  and  cents  ;  that  when  a  new  territory  is  opened  for 
settlement,  the  h'rst  man  who  goes  into  it  may  plant  there  a 
thing  which,  like  the  Canada-thistle,  or  some  other  of  those 
pests  of  the  soil,  cannot  be  dug  out  by  the  millions  of  men 
who  will  come  thereafter  ;  that  it  is  one  of  those  little  things 
that  it  is  so  trivial  in  its  nature  that  it  has  no  effect  upon  any 
body  save  the  few  men  who  first  plant  upon  the  soil ;  that  it 
is  not  a  thing  which  in  any  way  affects  the  family  of  commu 
nities  composing  these  States,  nor  any  way  endangers  the  gen 
eral  government.  Judge  Douglas  ignores  altogether  the  very 
well-known  fact^that  we  have  nerer  had  a  serious  menace  to 
our  political  existence,  except  it  sprang  from  this  thing,  which 
he  chooses  to  regard  as  only  upon  a  par  with  onions  and  po 
tatoes. 

Turn  it,  and  contemplate  it  in  another  view.  He  says,  that 
according  to  his  popular  sovereignty,  the  general  government 
may  give  to  the  territories  governors,  judges,  marshals,  secre 
taries,  and  all  the  other  chief  men  to  govern  them,  but  they 
must  not  touch  upon  this  other  question.  Why?  The  ques 
tion  of  who  shall  be  governor  of  a  territory  for  a  year  or  two, 
and  pass  away,  without  his  track  being  left  upon  the  soil,  or 
an  act  which  he  did  for  good  or  for  evil  being  left  behind,  is  a 
question  of  vast  national  magnitude.  It  is  so  much  opposed 
in  its  nature  to  locality,  that  the  nation  itself  must  decide  it  ; 
whi.e  this  other  matter  of  planting  slavery  upon  a  soil — a 
thing  which,  once  planted,  cannot  be  eradicated  by  the  suc 
ceeding  millions  who  have  as  much  right  there  as  the  first 
comers,  or  if  eradicated,  not  without  infinite  difficulty  and  a 
long  struggle — he  considers  the  power  to  prohibit  it,  as  one  of 
these  little,  local,  trivial  things,  that  the  nation  ought  not  to 
say  a  word  about  ;  that  it  affects  nobody  save  the  few  men 
who  are  there. 

Take  these  two  things  and  consider  them  together,  present 
the  question  of  planting  a  State  with  the  institution  of  slavery 
by  the  side  of  a  question  of  who  shall  be  governor  of  Kansas 
for  a  year  or  two,  and  is  there  a  man  here — is  there  a  man  on 
earth,  who  would  not  say  the  governor  question  is  the  little 
one,  and  the  slavery  question  is  the  great  one?  I. ask  any 


264  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES    OF 


honest  Democrat  if  the  small,  the  local,  and  the  trivial  and 
temporary  question  is  not,  who  shall  be  governor  I  While  the 
durable,  the  important,  and  the  mischievous  one  is,  fchall  this 
soil  be  planted  with  slavery  ? 

This  is  an  idea,  I  suppose,  which  has  arisen  in  Judge 
Douglas's  mind  from  his  peculiar  structure.  I  suppose  the 
institution  of  slavery  really  looks  small  to  him.  He  is  so  put 
up  by  nature  that  a  lash  upon  his  back  would  hurt  him,  but  a 
lash  upon  anybody  else's  back  does  not  hurt  him.  That  is 
the  build  of  the  man,  and  consequently  he  looks  upon  the 
matter  of  slavery  in  this  unimportant  light. 

Judge  Douglas  ought  to  remember  when  he  is  endeavoring 
to  force  this  policy  upon  the  American  people,  that  while  he 
is  put  up  in  that  way  a  good  many  are  not.  He  ought  to 
remember  that  there  was  once  in  this  country  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  supposed  to  be  a  Democrat — a  man 
whose  principles  and  policy  are  not  very  prevalent  among  Dem 
ocrats  to-day,  it  is  true ;  but  that  man  did  not  take  exactly 
this  view  of  the  insignificance  of  the  element  of  slavery  «of  which 
our  friend  Judge  Douglas  does.  In  contemplation  of  this 
thing,  we  all  know  he  was  led  to  exclaim,  "  I  tremble  for  my 
country  when  I  remember  that  God  is  just!"  We  know  how 
he  looked  upon  it  when  he  thus  expressed  himself.  There 
was  danger  to  this  country — danger  of  the  avenging  justice  of 
God  in  that  little  unimportant  popular  sovereignty  question  of 
Judge  Douglas.  He  supposed  there  was  a  question  of  God's 
eternal  justice  wrapped  up  in  the  enslaving  of  any  race  of  men, 
or  any  man,  and  that  those  who  did  so  brave  the  arm  of  Je 
hovah — that  when  a  nation  thus  dared  the  Almighty,  every 
friend  of  that  nation  had  cause  to  dread  his  wrath.  Choose 
ye  between  Jefferson  and  Douglas  as  to  what  is  the  true  view 
of  this  element  among  us. 

There  is  another  little  difficulty  about  this  matter  of  treat 
ing  the  territories  and  States  alike  in  all  things,  to  which  I 
ask  your  attention,  and  I  shall  leave  this  branch  of  the  case. 
If  there  is  no  difference  between  them,  why  not  make  the  ter 
ritories  States  at  once?  What  is  the  reason  that  Kansas  was 
not  fit  to  come  into  the  Union  when  it  was  organized  into  a 
territory,  in  Judge  Douglas's  view  ?  Can  any  of  you  tell  any 
reason  why  it  should  not  have  come  into  the  Union  at  once? 
They  are  fit,  as  he  thinks,  to  decide  upon  the  slavery  question 
— the  largest  and  most  important  with  which  they  could  pos- 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  265 

sibly  deal — what  could  they  do  by  coming  into  the  Union  that 
they  are  not  fit  to  do,  according  to  his  view,  by  staying  out 
of  it?  Oh,  they  are  not  fit  to  sit  in  Congress  and  decide 
upon  the  rates  of  postage,  or  questions  of  ad  valorem  or  spe 
cific  duties  on  foreign  goods,  or  live-oak  timber  contracts  ;  they 
are  not  fit  to  decide  these  vastly  important  matters,  which  are 
national  in  their  import,  but  they  are  fit,  "  from  the  jump," 
to  decide  this  little  negro  question.  But,  gentlemen,  the 
case  is  too  plain  ;  I  occupy  too  much  time  on  this  head, 
and  I  pass  on. 

Near  the  close  of  the  copyright  essay,  the  Judge,  I  think, 
comes  very  near  kicking  his  own  fat  into  the  fire.  I  did  not 
think,  when  I  commenced  these  remarks,  that  I  would  read 
from  that  article,  but  I  now  believe  I  will  : 

"This  exposition  of  the  history  of  these  measures,  show 
conclusively  that  the  authors  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of 
18,30  and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  of  1854,  as  well  as  the 
members  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  1774,  and  the 
founders  of  our  system  of  government  subsequent  to  the  .Revo 
lution,  regarded  the  people  of  the  territories  and  colonies  as 
political  communities  which  were  entitled  to  a  free  and  exclu 
sive  power  of  legislation  in  their  provisional  legislatures,  where 
their  representation  could  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases  of 
taxation  and  internal  polity." 

When  the  Judge  saw  that  putting  in  the  word  u  slavery" 
would  contradict  his  own  history,  he  put  in  what  he  knew 
would  pass  as  synonymous  with  it:  "  internal  polity."  When 
ever  we  find  that  in  one  of  his  speeches,  the  substitute  is  used 
in  this  manner ;  and  I  can  tell  you  the  reason.  It  would  be 
too  bald  a  contradiction  to  say  slavery,  but  u  internal  polity" 
is  a  general  phrase,  which  would  pass  in  some  quarters,  and 
which  he  hopes  will  pass  with  the  reading  community  for  the 
same  thing. 

"  This  right  pertains  to  the  people  collectively,  as  a  law- 
abiding  and  peaceful  community,  and  not  in  the  isolated  indi 
viduals  who  may  wander  upon  the  public  domain  in  violation 
of  the  law.  It  can  only  be  exercised  where  there  are  inhabi 
tants  sufficient  to  constitute  a  government,  and  capable  of  per 
forming  its  various  functions  and  duties,  a  fact  to  be  ascer 
tained  and  determined  by" — who  do  you  think?  Judge 
Douglas  says  "  By  Congress!" 

12 


266  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


"  Whether  the  number  shall  be  fixed  at  ten,  fifteen  or 
twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  does  not  affect  the  princi 
ple."  ' 

Now  I  have  only  a  few  comments  to  make.  Popular 
sovereignty,  by  his  own  words,  does  not  pertain  to  the  few 
persons  who  wander  upon  the  public  domain  in  violation  of 
law.  We  have  his  words  for  that.  When  it  does  pertain  to 
them,  is  when  they  are  sufficient  to  be  formed  into  an  or 
ganized  political  community,  and  he  fixes  the  minimum  for 
that  at  10,000,  and  the  maximum  at  20,000.  Now  I  would 
like  to  know  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  9,000  ?  Are  they 
all  to  be  treated,  until  they  are  large  enough  to  be  organized 
into  a  political  community,  as  wanderers  upon  the  public  land 
in  violation  of  law  ?  And  if  so  treated  and  driven  out,  at 
what  point  of  time  would  there  ever  be  ten  thousand  ?  If 
they  were  not  driven  out,  but  remained  there  as  trespassers 
upon  the  public  land  in  violation  of  the  law,  can  they  estab 
lish  slavery  there?  No — the  Judge  says  papular  sovereignty 
don't  pertain  to  them  then.  Can  they  exclude  it  then"?  No, 
popular  sovereignty  don't  pertain  to  them  then.  I  would  like 
to  know,  in  the  case  covered  by  the  essay,  what  condition  the 
people  of  the  territories  are  in  before  they  reach  the  number 
of  ten  .thousand  1 

But  the  main  point  I  wish  to  ask  attention  to  is,  that  the 
question  as  to  when  they  shall  have  reached  a  sufficient  num 
ber  to  be  formed  into  a  regular  organized  community,  is  to  be 
decided  "  by  Congress."  Judge  Douglas  says  so.  Well,  gen 
tlemen,  that  is  about  all  we  want.  No,  that  is  all  the  South 
erners  want.  That  is  what  all  those  who  are  for  slavery  want. 
They  do  not  want  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  from  coming 
into  the  new  territories,  and  they  do  not  want  popular  sov 
ereignty  to  hinder  it ;  and  as  Congress  is  to  say  when  they  are 
ready  to  be  organized,  all  that  the  South  has  to  do  is  to  get 
Congress  to  hold  off.  Let  Congress  hold  off  until  they  are 
ready  to  be  admitted  as  a  State,  and  the  South  has  all  it 
wants  in  taking  slavery  into  and  planting  it  in  all  the  territories 
that  we  now  have,  or  hereafter  may  have.  In  a  word,  the 
whole  thing,  at  a  dash  of  the  pen,  is  at  last  put  in  the  power 
of  Congress;  for  if  they  do  not  have  this  popular  sovereignty 
until  Congress  organizes  them,  I  ask  if  it  at  last  does  not  come 
i'roiii  Congress?  If,  at  lastj  it  amounts  to  anything  at  all, 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  267 

Congress  gives  it  to  them.  I  submit  this  rather  for  your  re 
flection  than  for  comment.  After  all  that  is  said,  at  last  by  a 
dash  of  the  pen,  everything  that  has  gone  before  is  undone, 
and  he  puts  the  whole  question  under  the  control  of  Congress. 
After  fighting  through  more  than  three  hours,  if  you  under 
take  to  read  it,  he  at  last  places  the  whole  matter  under  the 
control  of  that  power  which  he  had  been  contending  against, 
and  arrives  at  the  result  directly  contrary  to  what  he  had  been 
laboring  to  do.  lie  at  last  leaves  the  whole  matter  to  the 
control  of  Congress. 

There  are  two  main  objects,  as  I  understand  it,  of  this  Har 
per's  Magazine  essay.  One  was  to  show,  if  possible,  that  the 
men  of  our  revolutionary  times  were  in  favor  of  his  popular 
sovereignty  ;  and  the  other  was  to  show  that  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  had  not  -entirely  squelched  out  of  this  popular  sov 
ereignty.  I  do  not  propose,  in  regard  to  this  argument  drawn 
from  the  history  of  former  times>  to  enter  into  a  detailed  ex 
amination  of  the  historical  statements  he  has  made.  I  have 
the  impression  that  they  are  inaccurate  in  a  great  many  in 
stances.  Sometimes  in  positive  statement,  but  very  much 
more  inaccurate  by  the  suppression  of  statements  that  really 
belong  to  the  history.  But  I  do  not  propose  to  affirm  that  this 
is  so  to  any  very  great  extent ;  or  to  enter  into  a  very  u&inute 
examination  of  his  historical  statements.  I  avoid  (loing  so 
upon  this  principle — that  if  it  were  important  for  me  to  pass 
out  of  this  lot  in  the  least  period  of  time  possible,  and  I  came 
to  that  fence  and  saw,  by  a  calculation  of  rny  known  strength 
and  agility  that  I  could  clear  it  at  a  bound,  it  would  be  folly 
for  me  to  stop  and  consider  whether  I  could  or  not  crawl 
through  a  crack.  So  I  say  of  the  whole  history,  contained  in 
his  essay,  where  he  endeavored  to  link  the  men  of  the  Revo 
lution  to  popular  sovereignty.  It  only  requires  an  effort  to 
leap  out  of  it — a  single  bound  to  be  entirely  successful.  If 
you  read  it  over  you  will  find  that  he  quotes  here  and  there 
from  documents  of  the  revolutionary  times,  tending  to  sh'ow 
that  the  people  of  the  colonies  were  desirous  of  regulating 
their  own  concerns  in  their  own  way,  that  the  British  govern 
ment  should  not  interfere  ;  that  at  one  time  they  struggled  with 
the  British  government  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  the  African 
slave-trade  ;  if  not  directly,  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  it  in 
directly  by  taxation  sufficient  to  discourage  and  destroy  it. 


268  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

From  these  and  many  things  of  this  sort,  Judge  Douglas  argues 
that  they  were  in  favor  of  the  people  of  our  own  territories 
excluding  slavery  if  they  wanted  to,  or  planting  it  there  if  they 
wanted  to,  doing  just  as  they  pleased  from  the  time  they  set 
tled  upon  the  territory.  Now,  however  his  history  may  apply, 
and  whatever  of  his  argument  there  may  be  that  is  sound  and 
accurate  or  unsound  and  inaccurate,  if  we  can  find  out  what 
these  men  did  themselves  do  upon  this  very  question  of  slavery 
in  the  territories,  does  it  not  end  the  whole  thing?  If  after 
all  this  labor  and  effort  to  show  that  the  men  of  the  Revolu 
tion  were  in  favor  of  his  popular  sovereignty  and  his  mode  of 
dealing  with  slavery  in  the  territories,  we  can  show  that  these 
very  men  took  hold  of  that  subject,  and  dealt  with  it,  we  can 
see  for  ourselves  how  they  dealt  with  it.  It  is  not  a  matter 
of  argument  or  inference,  but  we  know  what  they  thought 
about  it. 

It  is  precisely  upon  that  part  of  the  history  of  the  country, 
that  one  important  omission  is  made  by  Judge  Douglas.  He 
selects  parts  of  the  history  of  the  United  States  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery,  and  treats  it  as  the  whole,  omitting  from  his 
historical  sketch  the  legislation  of  Congress  in  regard  to  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  by  which  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  established,  and  slavery  excluded  from  a  country  half  as 
large  as  the  present  United  States.  All  this  is  left  out  of  his 
.history,  and  in  nowise  alluded  to  by  him,  so  far  as  I  can  re 
member,  save  once,  when  he  makes  a  remark,  that  upon  his 
principle  the  Supreme  Court  were  authorized  to  pronounce  a 
decision  that  the  act  called  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  un 
constitutional.  All  that  history  has  been  left  out.  But  this 
part  of  the  history  of  the  country  was  not  made  by  the  men 
of  the  Revolution. 

There  was  another  part  of  our  political  history  made  by  the 
very  men  who  were  the  actors  in  the  Revolution,  which  has 
taken  the  name  of  the  Ordinance  of  '87.  Let  me  bring  that 
history  to  your  attention.  In  1784,  I  believe,  this  same  Mr. 
Jefferson  drew  up  an  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the 
country  upon  which  we  now  stand  ;  or  rather  a  frame  or  draft 
of  an  ordinance  for  the  government  of  this  country,  here  in 
Ohio,  our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  us  who  live  in  Illinois,  our 
neighbors  in  Wisconsin  and  Michigan.  In  that  ordinance, 
drawn  up  not  only  for  the  government  of  that  territory,  but 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  269 


for  the  territories  south  of  the  Ohio  river,  Mr.  Jefferson  ex 
pressly  provided  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery.  Judge  Doug 
las  says,  and  perhaps  is  right,  that  that  provision  was  lost 
from  that  ordinance.  I  believe  that  is  true.  When  the  vote 
was  taken  upon  it,  a  majority  of  all  present  in  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation  voted  for  it ;  but  there  were  so  many 
absentees  that  those  voting  for  it  did  not  make  the  clear  ma 
jority  necessary,  and  it  was  lost.  But  three  years  after  that 
the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  were  together  again,  and 
they  adopted  a  new  ordinance  for  the  government  of  this 
northwest  territory,  not  contemplating  territory  south  of  the 
river,  for  the  States  owning  that  territory  had  hitherto  re 
frained  from  giving  it  to  the  general  government ;  hence  they 
made  the  ordinance  to  apply  only  to  what  the  government 
owned.  Jn  that,  the  provision  excluding  slavery  was  inserted 
and  passed  unanimously,  or  at  any  rate  it  passed  and  became  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  Under  that  ordinance  we  live. 
First  here  in  Ohio  you  were  a  territory,  then  an  enabling  act 
was  passed,  authorizing  you  to  form  a  constitution  and  State 
government,  provided  it  was  republican  and  not  in  conflict 
with  the  ordinance  of  '87.  When  you  framed  your  constitu 
tion  and  presented  it  for  admission,  I  think  you  will  find  the 
legislation  upon  the  subject  will  show  that,  "  whereas  you  had 
formed  a  constitution  that  was  republican,  and  not  in  conflict 
with  the  ordinance  of  '87,"  therefore,  you  were  admitted  upon 
equal  footing  with  the  original  States.  The  same  process  ir 
a  few  years  was  gone  through  with  in  Indiana,  and  so  with 
Illinois,  and  the  same  substantially  with  Michigan  and  Wis 
consin. 

Not  only  did  that  ordinance  prevail,  but  it  was  constantly- 
looked  to  whenever  a  step  was  taken  by  a  new  territory  to 
become  a  State.  Congress  always  turned  their  attention  to  it, 
and  in  all  their  movements  upon  this  subject,  they  traced  their 
course  by  that  ordinance  of  '87.  When  they  admitted  new 
States,  they  advertised  them  of  this  ordinance  as  a  part  of  the 
legislation  of  the  country.  They  did  so,  because  they  had 
traced  the  ordinance  of  '87  throughout  the  history  of  this 
country.  Begin  with  the  men  of  the  Revolution,  and  go 
down  for  sixty  entire  years,  and  until  the  last  scrap  of  that 
territory  conies  into  the  Union  in  the  form  of  the  State  of 
Wisconsin — everything  was  made  to  conform  with  the  ordi- 


270  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

nance  of  '87,  excluding  slavery  from  that  vast  extent  of 
country. 

I  omitted  to  mention  in  the  right  place  that  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  was  in  process  of  being  framed  when 
that  ordinance  was  made  by  the  Congress  of  the  Confedera 
tion  ;  and  one  of  the  first  acts  of  Congress  itself,  under  the 
new  Constitution  itself,  was  to  give  force  to  that  ordinance  by 
putting  power  to  carry  it  out  in  the  hands  of  the  new  officers 
under  the  Constitution,  in  the  place  of  the  old  ones,  who  had 
been  legislated  out  of  existence  by  the  change  in  the  govern 
ment  from  the  Confederation  to  the  Constitution.  Not  only 
so,  but  I  believe  Indiana  once  or  twice,  if  not  Ohio,  petitioned 
the  general  government  for  the  privilege  of  suspending  that 
provision  and  allowing  them  to  have  slaves.  A  report  made 
by  Mr.  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  himself  a  slaveholder,  was  di 
rectly  against  it,  and  the  action  was  to  refuse  them  the  privi 
lege  of  violating  the  ordinance  of  '87. 

This  period  of  history,  which  I  have  run  over  briefly,  is,  I 
presume,  as  familiar  to  most  of  this  assembly  as  any  other  part 
of  the  history  of  our  country.  I  suppose  that  few  of  my  hear 
ers  are  not  as  familiar  with  that  part  of  history  as  I  am,  and 
I  only  mention  it  to  recall  your  attention  to  it  at  this  time. 
And  hence  I  ask,  how  extraordinary  a  thing  it  is  that  a  man 
who  has  occupied  a  position  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  who  is  now  in  his  third  term,  and  who  looks  to 
see  the  government  of  this  whole  country  fall  into  his  own 
hands,  pretending  to  give  a  truthful  and  accurate  history  of 
the  slavery  question  in  this  country,  should  so  entirely  ignore 
the  whole  of  that  portion  of  our  history — the  most  important 
of  all.  Is  it  not  a  most  extraordinary  spectacle,  that  a  man 
should  stand  up  and  ask  for  any  confidence  in  his  statements, 
who  sets  out  as  he  does  with  portions  of  history,  calling  upon 
the  people  to  believe  that  it  is  a  true  and  fair  representation, 
when  the  leading  part,  and  controlling  feature,  of  the  whole 
history  is  carefully  suppressed  ? 

But  the  mere  leaving  out  is  not  the  most  remarkable  fea 
ture  of  this  most  remarkable  essay.  His  proposition  is  to  es 
tablish  that  the  leading  men  of  the  Revolution  were  for  his 
great  principle  of  non-intervention  by  the  government  in  the 
question  of  slavery  in  the  territories  ;  while  history  shows  that 
they  decided  in  the  cases  actually  brought  before  them,  in  ex- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  271 

actly  the  contrary  way,  and  he  knows  it.  Not  only  did  they 
so  decide  at  that  time,  but  they  stuck  to  it  during  sixty  years, 
through  thick  and  thin,  as  long  as  there  was  one  of  the  revo 
lutionary  heroes  upon  the  stage  of  political  action.  Through 
their  whole  course,  from  first  to  last,  they  clung  to  freedom. 
And  now  he  asks  the  community  to  believe  that  the  men  of 
the  Revolution  were  in  favor  of  his  great  principle,  when  we 
have  the  naked  history  that  they  themselves  dealt  with  this 
very  subject-matter  of  his  principle,  and  utterly  repudiated  his 
principle,  acting  upon  a  precisely  contrary  ground.  It  is  as 
impudent  and  absurd  as  if  a  prosecuting  attorney  should  stand 
up  before  a  jury,  and  ask  them  to  convict  A.  as  the  murderer 
of  B. ,  while  B.  was  walking  alive  before  them. 

I  say  again,  if  Judge  Douglas  asserts  that  the  men  of  the 
Revolution  acted  upon  principles  by  which,  to  be  consistent 
with  themselves,  they  ought  to  have  adopted  his  popular  sov 
ereignty,  then,  upon  consideration  of  his  own  argument,  he  had 
a  right  to  make  you  believe  that  they  understood  the  princi 
ples  of  government,  but  misapplied  them — that  he  has  arisen 
to  enlighten  the  world  as  to  the  just  application  of  this  princi 
ple.  He  has  a  right  to  try  to  persuade  you  that  he  under 
stands  their  principles  better  than  they  did,  and,  therefore,  he 
will  apply  them  now,  not  as  they  did,  but  as  they  ought  to  have 
done.  He  has  a  right  to  go  before  the  community,  and  try  to 
convince  them  of  this  ;  but  he  has  no  right  to  attempt  to  impose 
upon  any  one  the  belief  that  these  men  themselves  approved 
of  his  great  principle.  There  are  two  ways  of  establishing 
a  proposition.  One  is,  by  trying  to  demonstrate  it  upon  rea 
son  ;  and  the  other  is,  to  show  that  great  men  in  former 
times  have  thought  so  and  so,  and  thus  to  pass  it  by  the 
weight  of  pure  authority.  Now,  if  Judge  Douglas  will  de 
monstrate  somehow  that  this  is  popular  sovereignty — the  right 
of  one  man  to  make  a  slave  of  another,  without  any  right  in 
that  other,  or  any  one  else  to  object — demonstrate  it  as  Euclid 
demonstrated  propositions — there  is  no  objection.  But  when 
he  conies  forward,  seeking  to  carry  a  principle  by  bringing  to 
it  the  authority  of  men  who  themselves  utterly  repudiate  that 
principle,  I  ask  that  he  shall  not  be  permitted  to  do  it. 

I  see,  in  the  Judge's  speech  here,  a  short  sentence  in  these 
words :  "  Our  fathers,  when  they  formed  this  government  un 
der  which  we  live,  understood  this  question  just  as  well  and 


272  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

even  better  than  we  do  now."  That  is  true  ;  I  stick  to  that. 
I  will  stand  by  Judge  Douglas  in  that  to  the  bitter  end.  And 
now,  Judge  Douglas,  come  and  stand  by  me,  and  truthfully 
show  how  they  acted,  understanding  it  better  than  we  do.  All 
I  ask  of  you,  Judge  Douglas,  is  to  stick  to  the  proposition 
that  the  men  of  the  Revolution  understood  this  subject  better 
than  we  do  now,  and  with  that  better  understanding  they  acted  bet 
ter  than  you  are  trying  to  act  now. 

1  wish  to  say  something  now  in  regard  to  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  as  dealt  with  by  Judge  Douglas.  In  that  u  memor 
able  debate  "  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  last  year, 
the  Judge  thought  fit  to  commence  a  process  of  catechising 
me,  and  at  Freeport  I  answered  his  questions,  and  propounded 
some  to  him.  Among  others  propounded  to  him  was  one  that 
I  have  here  now.  The  substance,  as  I  remember  it,  is,  "  Can 
the  people  of  a  United  States  territory,  under  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits,  prior  to  the 
formation  of  a  State  constitution  f  He  answered  that  they 
could  lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  the  United  States  terri 
tories,  notwithstanding  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  There  was 
something  about  that  answer  that  has  probably  been  a  trouble 
to  the  Judge  ever  since. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  expressly  gives  every  citizen  of 
the  United  States  a  right  to  carry  his  slaves  into  the  United 
States  territories.  And  now  there  was  some  inconsistency  in 
saying  that  the  decision  was  right,  and  saying,  too,  that  the 
people  of  the  territory  could  lawfully. drive  slavery  out  again. 
When  all  the  trash,  the  words,  the  collateral  matter,  was 
cleared  away  from  it — all  the  chaff  was  fanned  out  of  it,  it 
was  a  bare  absurdity — no  less  than  that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully 
driven  away  from  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  be.  Clear  it  of 
all  the  verbiage,  and  that  is  the  naked  truth  of  his  proposition 
— that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven  from  the  place  where  it 
has  a  lawful  right  to  stay.  Well,  it  was  because  the  Judge 
couldn't  help  seeing  this,  that  he  has  l:ad  so  much  trouble 
with  it  ;  and  what  I  want  to  ask  your  especial  attention  to, 
just  now,  is  to  remind  you,  if  you  have  not  noticed  the  fact, 
that  the  Judge  does  not  any  longer  say  that  the  people  can 
exclude  slavery.  He  does  not  say  so  in  the  copyright  essay  ; 
he  did  not  say  so  in  the  speech  that  he  made  here  ;  and,  so  far  MS 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  273 

1  know,  since  his  re-election  to  the  Senate,  he  has  never  said, 
as  lie  did  at  Freeport,  that  the  people  of  the  territories  can 
exclude  slavery.  He  desires  that  you,  who  wish  the  territo 
ries  to  remain  free,  should  believe  that  he  stands  by  that  posi 
tion,  but  he  does  not  sny  it  himself.  Pie  escapes  to  some  ex 
tent  the  absurd  position  I  have  stated  by  changing  his  lan 
guage  entirely.  What  he  says  now  is  something  different  in 
language,  and  we  will  consider  whether  it  is  not  different  in 
sense,  too.  It  is  now  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  or  rather 
the  Constitution  under  that  decision,  does  not  carry  slavery 
into  the  territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  of  the  ter 
ritories  to  control  it  as  other  property.  lie  does  not  say  the  peo 
ple  can  drive  it  out,  but  they  can  control  it  as  other  property. 
The  language  is  different ;  we  should  consider  whether  the 
sense  is  different.  Driving  a  horse  out  of  this  lot  is  too  plain 
a  proposition  to  be  mistaken  about ;  it  is  putting  him  on  the 
other  side  of  the  fence.  Or  it  might  be  a  sort  of  exclusion  of 
him  from  the  lot  if  you  were  to  kill  him  and  let  the  worms 
devour  him  ;  but  neither  of  these  things  is  the  same  as  "  con 
trolling  him  as  other  property."  That  would  be  to  feed  him, 
to  pamper  him,  to  ride  him,  to  use  and  abuse  him,  to  make 
the  most  money  out  of  him  "  as  other  property  ;"  but  please 
you,  what  do  the  men  who  are  in  favor  of  slavery  want  more 
than  this  *?  What  do  they  really  want,  other  than  that 
slavery,  being  in  the  territories,  shall  be  controlled  as  other 
property  ? 

If  they  want  anything  else,  I  do  not  comprehend  it.  I  ask 
your  attention  to  this,  first,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the 
change  of  ground  the  Judge  has  made  ;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  the  importance  of  the  change — that  that  change  is  not 
such  as  to  give  you  gentlemen  who  want  his  popular  sover 
eignty  the  power  to  exclude  the  institution  or  drive  it  out  at 
all.  I  know  the  Judge  sometimes  squints  at  the  argument 
that  in  controlling  it  as  other  property  by  unfriendly  legisla 
tion  they  may  control  it  to  death,  as  you  might  in  the  case  of 
a  horse,  perhaps,  feed  him  so  lightly  and  ride  him  so  much 
that  he  would  die.  But  when  you  come  to  legislative  control, 
there  is  something  more  to  be  attended  to.  I  have  no  doubt, 
myself,  that  if  the  territories  should  undertake  to  control  slave 
prop"ny  as  other  property — that  is,  control  it  in  such  a  way 
that  it  would  be  the  most  valuable  as  property,  and  make  it  bear 

12* 


274  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

its  just  proportion  in  the  way  of  burdens  as  property — really 
deal  with  it  as  property — the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  will  say,  "  God  speed  you  and  amen."  But  I  under 
take  to  give  the  opinion,  at  least,  that  if  the  territories  attempt 
by  any  direct  legislation  to  drive  the  man  with  his  slave  out 
of  the  territory,  or  to  decide  that  his  slave  is  free  because  of 
his  being  taken  in  there,  or  to  tax  him  to  such  an  extent  that 
he  cannot  keep  him  there,  the  Supreme  Court  will  unhesita 
tingly  decide  all  such  legislation  unconstitutional,  as  long  as 
that  Supreme  Court  is  constructed  as  the  Dred  Scott  Supreme 
Court  is.  The  first  two  things  they  have  already  decided,  ex 
cept  that  there  is  a  little  quibble  among  lawyers  between  the 
words  dicta  and  decision.  They  have  already  decided  a  negro 
cannot  be  made  free  by  territorial  legislation. 

What  is  that  Dred  Scott  decision?  Judge  Douglas  labors 
to  show  that  it  is  one  thing,  while  I  think  it  is  altogether  dif 
ferent.  It  is  a  long  opinion,  but  it  is  all  embodied  in  this 
short  statement:  "The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
forbids  Congress  to  deprive  a  man  of  his  property,  without 
due  process  of  law  ;  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  that  Constitution  ;  therefore,  if  Con 
gress  shf»ll  undertake  to  say  that  a  man's  slave  is  no  longer  his 
slave,  when  he  crosses  a  certain  line  into  a  territory,  that  is 
depriving  him  of  his  property  without  due  process  of  law,  and 
is  unconstitutional."  There  is  the  whole  Dred  Scott  decision. 
They  add  that  if  Congress  cannot  do  so  itself,  Congress  can 
not  confer  any  power  to  do  so,  and  hence  any  effort  by  the 
territorial  legislature  to  do  either  of  these  things  is  absolutely 
decided  against.  It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  by  that  court. 

Now,  as  to  this  indirect  mode  by  "  unfriendly  legislature," 
all  lawyers  here  will  readily  understand  that  such  a  proposi 
tion  cannot  be  tolerated  for  a  moment,  because  a  legislature 
cannot  indirectly  do  that  which  it  cannot  accomplish  direct 
ly.  Then  I  say  any  legislature  to  control  this  property,  as 
property,  for  its  benefit  as  property,  would  be  hailed  by  this 
Dred  Scott  Supreme  Court  and  fully  sustained  ;  but  any  legis 
lation  driving  slave  property  out,  or  destroying  it  as  property, 
directly  or  indirectly,  will,  most  assuredly,  by  that  court,  bo 
held  unconstitutional. 

Judge  Douglas  says  if  the  Constitution  carries  slavcrv  into 
the  territories,  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  of  the  teri'ito- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  275 

ies  to  control  it  as  other  property,  then  it  follows  logically 
that  every  one  who  swears  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  must  give  that  support  to  that  property  which 
it  needs.  And  if  the  Constitution  carries  slavery  into  the 
territories,  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  to  control  it  as 
other  property,  then  it  also  carries  it  into  the  States,  because 
the  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Now,  gen 
tlemen,  if  it  were  not  for  my  excessive  modesty  I  would  say 
that  I  told  that  very  thing  to  Judge  Douglas  quite  a  year  ago. 
This  argument  is  here  in  print,  and  if  it  were  not  for  my 
modesty  as  I  said,  I  might  call  your  attention  to  it.  If  you 
read  it,  you  will  find  that  I  not  only  made  that  argument,  but 
made  it  better  than  he  has  made  it  since. 

There  is,  however,  this  difference.  I  say  now,  and  said 
then,  there  is  no  sort  of  question  that  the  Supreme  Court  has 
decided  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  slaveholder  to  take  his  slave 
and  hold  him  in  the  territory  ;  and  saying  this,  Judge  Doug 
las  himself  admits  the  conclusion.  He  says  if  that  is  so,  this 
consequence  will  follow  ;  and  because  this  consequence  would 
follow,  his  argument  is,  the  decision  cannot,  therefore,  be  that 
way — "  that  would  spoil  my  Popular  Sovereignty,  and  it  can 
not  be  possible  that  this  great  principle  has  been  squelched  out 
in  this  extraordinary  way.  It  might  be,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
extraordinary  consequences  of  spoiling- my  humbug." 

Another  feature  of  the  Judge's  argument  about  the  Dred 
Scott  case  is,  an  effort  to  show  that  that  decision  deals  alto 
gether  in  declarations  of  negatives  ;  that  the  Constitution  does 
not  affirm  anything  as  expounded  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
but  it  only  declares  a  want  of  power — a  total  absence  of 
power,  in  reference  to  the  territories.  It  seems  to  be  his  pur 
pose  to  make  the  whole  of  that  decision  to  result  in  a  mere 
negative  declaration  of  a  want  of  power  in  Congress  to  do 
anything  in  relation  to  this  matter  in  territories.  I  know  the 
opinion  of  the  Judges  states  that  there  is  a  total  absence  of 
power  ;  but  that  is,  unfortunately,  not  all  it  states  ;  for  the 
Judges  add  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  It  does  not  stop 
at  saying  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  recognized  in 
the  Constitution,  is  declared  to  exist  somewhere  in  the  Con 
stitution,  but  says  it  is  affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  Its  lan 
guage  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  it  is  embodied  and  so 


276  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

woven  into  that  instrument  that  it  cannot  be  detached  with 
out  breaking  the  Constitution  itself.  Tn  a  word,  it  is  part  of 
the  Constitution. 

Douglas  is  singularly  unfortunate  in  his  effort  to  make  out 
that  decision  to  be  altogether  negative,  when  the  express  lan 
guage  at  the  vital  part  is  that  this  is  distinctly  affirmed  in  the 
Constitution.  I  think  myself,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  this 
decision  does  not  merely  carry  slavery  into  the  territories,  but 
by  its  logical  conclusion  it  carries  it  into  the  States  in  which 
we  live.  One  provision  of  that  Constitution  is,  that  it  shall 
be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land — I  do  not  quote  the  language — 
any  constitution  or  law  of  any  State  to  the  contrary,  not 
withstanding.  This  Dred  Scott  decision  says  that  the  right  of 
property  in  a  skive  is  affirmed  in  that  Constitution,  which  is 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any  State  constitution  or  law 
notwithstanding.  Then  I  say  that  to  destroy  a  thing  which 
is  distinctly  affirmed  and  supported  by  the  supreme  laAv  of  the 
land,  even  by  a  State  constitution  or  law,  is  a  violation  of  that 
supreme  law,  and  there  is  no  escape  from  it.  In  my  judg 
ment  there  is  no  avoiding  that  result,  save  that  the  American 
people  shall  see  that  constitutions  are  better  construed  than 
our  Constitution  is  construed  in  that  decision.  They  must 
take  care  that  it  is  more  faithfully  and  truly  carried  out  than 
it  is  there  expounded. 

I  must  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  Near  the  beginning  of  my 
remarks,  I  said  that  this  insidious  Douglas  popular  sovereign 
ty  is  the  measure  that  now  threatens  the  purpose  of  the 
liepublican  party,  to  prevent  slavery  from  being  nationalized 
in  the  United  States.  I  propose  to  ask  your  attention  for  a 
little  while  to  some  propositions  in  affirmance  of  that  state 
ment.  Take  it  just  as  it  stands,  and  apply  it  as  a  principle  ; 
extend  and  apply  that  principle  elsewhere,  and  consider  where 
it  will  lead  you.  I  now  put  this  proposition,  that  Judge 
Douglas'  popular  sovereignty  applied  will  re-open  the  African 
slave-trade  ;  and  I  will  demonstrate  it  by  any  variety  of  ways 
in  which  you  pan  turn  the  subject  or  look  at  it. 

The  Judge  says  that  the  people  of  the  territories  have  the 
right,  by  his  principle,  to  have  slaves,  if  they  want  them. 
Then  I  say  that  the  people  in  Georgia  have  the  right  to  buy 
slaves  in  Africa,  if  they  want  them,  and  J  defy  any  man  on 
garth  to  show  any  distinction  between  the  two  things — to 


ABKAHAM     LINCOLN.  277 

show  that  the  one  is  either  more  wicked  or  more  unlawful  ; 
to  show,  on  original  principles,  that  one  is  better  or  worse 
than  the  other ;  or  to  show  by  the  Constitution,  that  one 
differs  a  whit  from  the  other.  He  will  tell  me,  doubtless,  that 
there  is  no  constitutional  provision  against  people  taking 
slaves  into  the  new  territories,  and  I  tell  him  that  there  is 
equally  no  constitutional  provision  against  buying  slaves  in 
Africa.  He  will  tell  you  that  a  people,  in  the  exercise  of 
popular  sovereignty,  ought  to  do  as  they  please  about  that 
thing,  and  have  slaves  if  they  want  them ;  and  I  tell  you  that 
the  people  of  Georgia  are  as  much  entitled  to  popular  sover 
eignty  and  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  they  want  them,  as  the 
people  of  the  territory  are  to  have  slaves  if  they  want  them. 
I  ask  any  man,  dealing  honestly  with  himself,  to  point  out  a 
distinction. 

I  have  recently  seen  a  letter  of  Judge  Douglas',  in  which, 
without  stating  that  to  be  the  object,  he  doubtless  endeavors 
to  make  a  distinction  between  the  two.  He  says  he  is  un 
alterably  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against  the  African 
slave-trade.  And  why  1  He  then  seeks  to  give  a  reason  that 
would  not  apply  to  his  popular  sovereignty  in  the  territories. 
What  is  that  reason?  "The  abolition  of  the  African  slave- 
trade  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution!"  I  deny  -it. 
There  is  no  truth  in  the  proposition  that  the  abolition  of  the 
African  slave-trade  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  No 
man  can  put  his  finger  on  anything  in  the  Constitution,  or  on 
the  line  of  history,  which  shows  it.  It  is  a  mere  barren  as 
sertion,  made  simply  for  the  purpose  of  getting  up  a  distinc 
tion  between  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade  and  hi? 
"great  principle." 

At  the  time  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
adopted  it  was  expected  that  the  slave-trade  would  be  abol 
ished.  I  should  assert,  and  insist  upon  that,  if  Judge  Doug 
las  denied  it.  But  I  know  that  it  was  equally  expected  that 
slavery  would  be  excluded  from  the  territories,  and  I  can  show 
by  history,  that  in  regard  to  these  two  things,  public  opinion 
was  exactly  alike,  while  in  regard  to  positive  action,  there  was 
more  done  in  the  Ordinance  of  '87  to  resist  the  spread  of 
slavery  than  was  ever  done  to  abolish  the  foreign  slave-trade. 
Lest  1  be  misunderstood,  I  say  again  that  at  the  time  of  the 
formation  of  the  constitution,  public  expectation  was  that  the 


278  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

slave-trade  would  be  abolished,  but  no  more  so  than  the  spread 
of  slavery  in  the  territories  should  be  restrained.  They  stand 
alike,  except  that  in  the  ordinance  of  '87  there  was  a  mark 
left  by  public  opinion,  showing  that  it  was  more  committed 
against  the  spread  of  slavery  in  the  territories  than  against  the 
foreign  slave-trade. 

Compromise !  What  word  of  compromise  was  there  about 
it.  -Why,  the  public  sense  was  then  in  favor  of  the  abolition 
of  the  slave-trade  ;  but  there  was  at  the  time  a  very  great  com 
mercial  interest  involved  in  it,  and  extensive  capital  in  that 
branch  of  trade.  There  were  doubtless  the  incipient  stages  of 
improvement  in  the  South  in  the  Avay  of  farming,  dependent 
on  the  slave-trade,  and  they  made  a  proposition  to  Congress 
to  abolish  the  trade  after  allowing  it  twenty  years,  a  sufficient 
time  for  the  capital  and  commerce  engaged  in  it  to  be  trans 
ferred  to  other  channels.  They  made  no  provision  that  it 
should  be  abolished  in  twenty  years  ;  I  do  not  doubt  that  they 
expected  it  would  be  ;  but  they  made  no  bargain  about  it. 
The  public  sentiment  left  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  any  that  it 
would  be  done  away.  I  repeat,  there  is  nothing  in  the  history 
of  those  times  in  favor  of  that  matter  being  a  compromise  of  the 
Constitution.  It  was  the  public  expectation  at  the  time, 
manifested  in  a  thousand  ways,  that  the  spread  of  slavery 
should  also  be  restricted. 

Then  I  say  if  this  principle  is  established,  that  there  is  no 
wrong  in  slavery,  and  whoever  wants  it  has  a  right  to  have  it, 
is  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents,  a  sort  of  question  as  to  how 
they  shall  deal  with  brutes, — that  between  us  and  the  negro 
here  there  is  no  sort  of  question,  but  that  at  the  South  the 
question  is  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile.  That  is  all. 
It  is  a  mere  matter  of  policy  ;  there  is  a  perfect  right  accord 
ing  to  interest  to  do  just  as  you  please — when  this  is  done, 
where  this  doctrine  prevails,  the  miners  and  sappers  will  have 
formed  public  opinion  for  the  slave-trade.  They  will  be  ready 
for  Jeff.  Davis  and  Stephens,  and  other  leaders  of  that  com 
pany,  to  sound  the  bugle  for  the  revival  of  the  slavx;-trade,  for 
the  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  for  the  flood  of  slavery  to  be 
poured  over  the  free  States,  while  we  shall  be  here  tied  down 
and  helpless,  and  run  over  like  sheep. 

It  is  to  be  part  and  parcel  of  this  same  idea,  to  say  to  men 
who  want  to  adhere  to  the  Democratic  party,  who  have  always 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  279 


belonged  to  that  party,  and  are  only  looking  about  for  some 
excuse  to  stick  to  it,  but  nevertheless  hate  slavery,  that  Doug 
las's  popular  sovereignty  is  as  good  a  way  as  any  to  oppose 
slavery.  They  allow  themselves  to  be  persuaded  easily,  in  ac 
cordance  with  their  previous  dispositions,  into  this  belief,  that 
it  is  about  as  good  a  way  of  opposing  slavery  as  any,  and  we 
can  do  that  without  straining  our  old  party  ties  or  breaking 
up  old  political  associations.  We  can  do  so  without  being 
called  negro-worshippers.  We  can  do  that  without  being  sub 
jected  to  the  jibes  and  sneers  that  are  so  readily  thrown  out  in 
place  of  argument,  where  no  argument  can  be  found.  So  let 
us  stick  to  this  popular  sovereignty — this  insidious  popular 
sovereignty.  Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  thing 
that  has  really  happened,  which  shows  this  gradual  and  steady 
debauching  of  public  opinion,  this  course  of  preparation  for  the 
revival  of  the  slave-trade,  for  the  territorial  slave-code,  and  the 
new  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  is  to  carry  slavery  into  the  free 
States.  Did  you  ever,  five  years  ago,  hear  of  anybody  in  the 
world  saying  that  the  negro  had  no  share  in  the  Declaration 
of  National  Independence ;  that  it  did  not  mean  negroes  at 
all  :  and  when  "  all  men"  were  spoken  of,  negroes  were  not 
included  ? 

I  am  satisfied  that  five  years  ago  that  proposition  was  not 
put  upon  paper  by  any  living  being  anywhere.  I  have  been 
unable  at  any  time  to  find  a  man  in  an  audience  who  would 
declare  that  he  had  ever  known  of  anybody  saying  so  five  years 
ago.  But  last  year  there  was  not  a  Douglas  popular  sover 
eign  in  Illinois  who  did  not  say  it  Is  there  one  in  Ohio  but 
declares  his  firm  belief  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
did  not  mean  negroes  at  all  ?  I  do  not  know  how  this  is  ;  I 
have  not  been  here  much  ;  but  I  presume  you  are  very  much 
alike  everywhere.  Then  I  suppose  that  all  now  express  the 
belief  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  never  did  mean 
negroes.  I  call  upon  one  of  them  to  say  that  he  said  it  five 
years  ago. 

If  you  think  that  now,  and  did  not  think  it  then,  the  next 
thing  that  strikes  me  is  to  remark  that  there  has  been  a  change 
wrought  in  you,  and  a  very  significant  change  it  is,  being  no 
less  than  changing  the  negro,  in  your  estimation,  from  the  rank 
of  a  man  to  that  of  a  brute.  They  are  taking  him  down,  and 
placing  him,  when  spoken  of,  among  reptiles  and  crocodiles, 
as  Judge  Douglas  himself  expresses  it. 


280  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Is  not  this  change  wrought  in  your  minds  a  very  important 
change  ?  Public  opinion  in  this  country  is  everything.  In  a 
nation  like  ours  this  popular  sovereignty  and  squatter  sover 
eignty  have  already  wrought  a  change  in  the  public  mind  to  the 
extent  I  have  stated.  There  is  no  man  in  this  crowd  who  can 
contradict  it. 

Now,  if  you  are  opposed  to  slavery  honestly,  as  much  as 
anybody,  I  ask  you  to  note  that  fact,  and  the  like  of  which  is 
to  follow,  to  be  plastered  on,  layer  after  layer,  until  very  soon 
you  are  prepared  to  deal  with  the  negro  everywhere  as  with 
the  brute.  If  public  sentiment  has  not  been  debauched  al 
ready  to  this  point,  a  new  turn  of  the  screw  in  that  direction 
is  all  that  is  wanting  ;  and  this  is  constantly  being  done  by 
the  teachers  of  this  insidious  popular  sovereignty.  You  need 
but  one  or  two  turns  further  until  your  minds,  now  ripening 
under  these  teachings,  will  be  ready  for  all  these  things,  and 
you  will  receive  and  support,  or  submit  to,  the  slave  trade,  re 
vived  with  all  its  horrors,  a  slave  code  enforced  in  our  terri 
tories,  and  a  new  Dred  Scott  decision  to  bring  slavery  up  into 
the  very  heart  of  the  free  North.  This,  I  must  say,  is  but 
carrying  out  those  words  prophetically  spoken  by  Mr.  Clay^ 
many,  many  years  ago — I  believe  more  than  thirty  years,  when 
he  told  an  audience  that  if  they  would  repress  all  tendencies 
to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation,  they  must  go  back  to  the 
era  of  our  independence  and  muzzle  the  cannon  which  thun 
dered  its  annual  joyous  return  on  the  Fourth  of  July  ;  they 
must  blow  out  the  moral  lights  around  us ;  they  must  pene 
trate  the  human  soul  and  eradicate  the  love  of  liberty  ;  but 
until  they  did  these  things,  and  others  eloquently  enumerated 
by  him,  they  could  not  repress  all  tendencies  to  ultimate  eman 
cipation. 

I  ask  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  a  pre-eminent  degree 
these  popular  sovereigns  are  at  this  work  ;  blowing  out  the 
moral  lights  around  us  ;  teaching  that  the  negro  is  no  longer  a 
man  but  a  brute  ;  that  the  Declaration  has  nothing  to  do  with 
him;  that  he  ranks  with  the  crocodile  and  the  reptile;  that 
man,  with  body  and  soul,  is  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents.  I 
suggest  to  this  portion  of  the  Ohio  Republicans,  or  Democrats, 
if  there  be  any  present,  the  serious  consideration  of  this  fact, 
that  there  is  now  going  on  among  you  a  steady  process  of  de 
bauching  public  opinion  on  this  subject.  With  this,  my 
friends,  I  bid  you  adieu. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  281 


SPEECH    OF    ME.   LINCOLN, 
AT  CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  September,  1859. 

MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO:  This  is  the 
first  time  in  my  life  that  I  have  appeared  before  an  audience 
in  so  great  a  city  as  this.  I  therefore — though  I  am  no  longer 
a  young  man — make  this  appearance  under  some  degree  of 
embarrassment.  But  I  have  found  that  when  one  is  embar 
rassed,  usually  the  shortest  way  to  get  through  with  it  is  to 
quit  talking  or  thinking  about  it,  and  go  at  something  else. 

I  understand  that  you  have  had  recently  with  you  my  very 
distinguished  friend,  Judge  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  and  I  under 
stand,  without  having  had  an  opportunity  (not  greatly  sought 
to  be  sure)  of  seeing  a  report  of  the  speech  that  he  made  here, 
that  he  did  me  the  honor  to  mention  my  humble  name.  I 
suppose  that  he  did  so  for  the  purpose  of  making  some  objec 
tion  to  some  sentiment  at  some  time  expressed  by  me.  I 
should  expect,  it  is  true,  that  Judge  Douglas  had  reminded 
you,  or  informed  you,  if  you  had  never  before  heard  it,  that  I 
had  once  in  my  life  declared  it  as  my  opinion  that  this  govern 
ment  cannot  "endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free  ; 
that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  and,  as  I 
had  expressed  it,  I  did  not  expect  the  house  to  fall  ;  that  I  did 
not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved  ;  but  that  I  did  expect 
that  it  would  cease  to  be  divided  ;  that  it  would  become  all 
one  thing  or  all  the  other  ;  that  either  the  opposition  of  slavery 
would  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the 
public  mind  would  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction  ;  or  the  friends  of  slavery  will  push  it 
forward  until  it  becomes  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  or 
new,  free  as  well  as  slave.  I  did,  fifteen  months  ago,  express 
that  opinion,  and  upon  many  occasions  Judge  Douglas  has  de 
nounced  it,  and  has  greatly,  intentionally  or  unintentionally, 
misrepresented  my  purpose  in  the  expression  of  that  opinion. 

I  presume,  without  having  seen  a  report  of  his  speech,  that 
he  did  so  here.  I  presume  that  he  alluded  also  to  that  opinion 
in  different  language,  having  been  expressed  at  a  subsequent 
time  by  Governor  Seward  of  New-York,  and  that  he  took  the 
two  in  a  lump  and  denounced  them  ;  that  he  tried  to  point  out 


282  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

that  there  was  something  couched  in  this  opinion  which  led 
to  the  making  of  an  entire  uniformity  of  the  local  institutions 
of  the  various  States  of  the  Union,  in  utter  disregard  of  the 
different  States,  which  in  their  nature  would  seem  to  require 
a  variety  of  institutions,  and  a  variety  of  laws,  conforming  to 
the  differences  in  the  nature  of  the  different  States. 

Not  only  so  ;  I  presume  he  insisted  that  this  was  a  declara 
tion  of  war  between  the  free  and  slave  States — that  it  was  the 
sounding  to  the  onset  of  continual  war  between  the  different 
States,  the  slave  and  free  States. 

This  charge,  in  this  form,  was  made  by  Judge  Douglas,  on, 
I  believe,  the  9th  of  July,  1858,  in  Chicago,  in  my  hearing. 
On  the  next  evening,  I  made  some  reply  to  it.  I  informed 
him  that  many  of  the  inferences  he  drew  from  that  expression 
of  mine  were  altogether  foreign  to  any  purpose  entertained  by 
me,  and  in  so  far  as  he  should  ascribe  these  inferences  to  me, 
as  my  purpose,  he  was  entirely  mistaken  ;  and  in  so  far  as  he 
might  argue  that  whatever  might  be  my  purpose,  actions,  con 
forming  to  my  views,  would  lead  .o  these  results,  he  might 
argue  and  establish  if  he  could ;  but,  so  far  as  purposes  were 
concerned,  he  was  totally  mistaken  as  to  me. 

When  I  made  that  reply  to  him — when  I  told  him,  on  the 
question  of  declaring  war  between  the  different  States  of  the 
Union,  that  I  had  not  said  that  I  did  not  expect  any  peace 
upon  this  question  until  slavery  was  exterminated  ;  that  I  had 
only  said  I  expected  peace  when  that  institution  was  put  where 
the  public  mind  should  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  course 
of  ultimate  extinction  ;  that  I  believed  from  the  organization 
of  our  government,  until  a  very  recent  period  of  time,  the  in 
stitution  had  been  placed  and  continued  upon  such  a  basis  ; 
that  we  had  had  comparative  peace  upon  that  question 
through  a  portion  of  that  period  of  time,  only  because  the 
public  mind  rested  in  that  belief  in  regard  .to  it,  and  that  when 
we  returned  to  that  position  in  relation  to  that  matter,  I  sup 
posed  we  should  again  have  peace  as  we  previously  had.  I 
assured  him,  as  I  now  assure  you,  that  I  neither  then  had,  nor 
have,  nor  never  had,  any  purpose  in  any  way  of  interfering 
with  the  institution  of  slavery,  where  it  exists.  I  believe  we 
have  no  power,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
or  rather  under  the  form  of  government  under  which  we  live, 
to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  any  other  of  the 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  283 

institutions  of  our  mister  State?,  be  they  free  or  slave  States.  I 
declared  then,  and  I  now  re-declare,  that  I  have  as  little  incli 
nation  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  where  it 
now  exists,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  general  govdrn- 
rnent,  or  any  other  instrumentality,  as  I  believe  we  have  no 
power  to  do  so.  I  accidentally  used  this  expression  :  I  had  no 
purpose  of  entering  into  the  slave  States  to  disturb  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery  !  So,  upon  the  first  occasion  that  Judge 
Douglas  got  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  me,  he  passed  by  the 
whole  body  of  what  I  had  said  upon  that  subject,  and  seized 
upon  the  particular  expression  of  mine,  that  I  had  no  purpose 
of  entering  into  the  slave  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of 
slavery.  "  Oh,  no,"  said  he,  "  he  (Lincoln)  won't  enter  into 
the  slave  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery  ;  he  is  too 
prudent  a  man  to  do  such  a  thing  as  that ;  he  only  means 
that  he  will  go  on  to  the  line  between  the  free  and  slave 
States,  and  shoot  over  at  them.  This  is  all  he  means  to  do. 
lie  means  to  do  them  all  the  harm  he  can,  to  disturb  them  all 
he  can,  in  such  a  way  as  to  keep  his  own  hide  in  perfect  safety. " 

Well,  now,  I  did  not  think,  at  that  time,  that  that  was 
either  a  very  dignified  or  very  logical  argument  ;  but  so  it 
was.  I  had  to  get  along  with  it  as  well  as  I  could. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  here  to-night,  that  if  I  ever  do  shoot 
over  the  line  at  the  people  on  the  other  side  of  the  line  into  a 
slave  State,  and  purpose  to  do  so,  keeping  my  skin  safe,  that 
1  have  now  about  the  best  chance  I  shall  ever  have.  I  should 
not  wonder  that  there  are  some  Kentuckians  about  this  au 
dience  ;  we  are  close  to  Kentucky ;  and  whether  that  be  so  or . 
not,  we  are  on  elevated  ground,  and  by  speaking  distinctly,  I 
should  not  wonder  if  some  of  the  Kentuckians  would  hear  me 
on  the  other  side  of  the  river.  For  that  reason  I  propose  to 
address  a  portion  of  what  I  have  to  say  to  the  Kentuckians. 

I  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  Kentuckians,  that.  I  am 
what  they  call,  as  I  understand  it,  a  "Black  Republican."  I 
think  slavery  is  wrong,  morally  and  politically.  I  desire  that 
it  should  be  no  further  spread  in  these  United  States,  and  I 
should  not  object  if  it  should  gradually  terminate  in  the  whole 
Union.  While  I  say  this  for  myself,  I  say  to  you  Ken 
tuckians,  that  I  understand  you  differ  radically  with  me  upon 
this  proposition  ;  that  you  believe  slavery  is  a  good  thing ; 
that  slavery  is  right ;  that  it  ought  to  be  extended  and  per- 


284  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

petuated  in  this  Union.  Now,  there  being  this  broad  differ 
ence  between  us,  I  do  not  pretend  in  addressing  myself  to 
you,  Ke-ntuckians,  to  attempt  proselyting  you  ;  that  would  be 
a  vain  effort.  I  do  not  enter  upon  it.  1  only  propose  to  try 
to  show  you  that  you  ought  to  nominate  for  the  next  Presi 
dency,  at  Charleston,  my  distinguished  friend,  Judge  Douglas. 
In  all  that  there  is  a  difference  between  you  and  him,  1  un 
derstand  he  is  sincerely  for  you,  and  more  wisely  for  you,  than 
you  are  for  yourselves.  I  will  try  to  demonstrate  that  propo 
sition.  Understand  now,  I  say  that  I  believe  he  is  as  sin 
cerely  for  you,  and  more  wisely  for  you,  than  you  are  for 
yourselves. 

What  do  you  want  more  than  anything  else  to  make  suc 
cessful  your  views  of  slavery — to  advance  the  outspread  of  it, 
and  to  secure  and  perpetuate  the  nationality  of  it?  What  do 
you  want  more  than  anything  else?  What  is  needed  abso 
lutely  *?  What  is  indispensable  to  you  ?  Why  !  if  I  may  be 
allowed  to  answer  the  question,  it  is  to  retain  a  hold  upon  the 
North — it  is  to  retain  support  and  strength  from  the  free 
States.  If  you  can  get  this  support  and  strength  from  the 
free  States  you  can  succeed.  If  you  do  not  get  this  support 
and  this  strength  from  the  free  States,  you  are  in  the  minority, 
and  you  are  beaten  at  once. 

If  that  proposition  be  admitted — and  it  is  undeniable — then 
the  next  thing  I  say  to  you  is,  that  Douglas  of  all  the  men  in 
this  nation  is  the  only  man  that  affords  you  any  hold  upon  the 
fret  States  ;  that  no  other  man  can  give  you  any  strength  in 
the  free  States.  This  being  so,  if  you  doubt  the  other  branch 
of  the  proposition,  whether  he  is  for  you — whether  he  is  really 
for  you,  as  I  have  expressed  it,  I  propose  asking  your  atten 
tion  for  a  while  to  a  few  facts. 

The  issue  between  you  and  me,  understand,  is,  that  I  think 
slavery  is  wrong,  and  ought  not  to  be  outspread,  and  you 
think  it  is  right  and  ought  to  be  extended  and  perpetuated. 
[A  voice,  "  Oh,  Lord."]  That  is  my  Kentuekian  I  am  talk 
ing  to  now. 

I  now  proceed  to  try  to  show  you  that  Douglas  is  as  sin 
cerely  for  you  and  more  wisely  for  you  than  you  are  for  your 
selves. 

In  the  first  place  we  know  that  in  a  government  like  this, 
in  a  government  of  the  people,  where  the  voice  of  all  the  men 


ABEAHAM     LINCOLN.  285 

of  that  country,  substantially,  enters  into  the  execution — or 
administration  rather — of  the  government,  in  such  a  govern 
ment,  what  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  of  it,  is  public  opinion. 
I  lay  down  the  proposition,  that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  only 
the  man  that  promises  you  in  advance  a  hold  upon  the  North, 
and  support  in  the  North,  but  that  he  constantly  moulds  pub 
lic  opinion  to  your  ends  ;  that  in  every  possible  way  he  can,  he 
constantly  moulds  the  public  opinion  of  the.  North  to  your 
ends  ;  and  if  there  are  a  few  things  in  which  he  seems  to  be 
against  you — a  few  things  which  he  says  that  appear  to  be 
against  you,  and  a  few  that  he  forbears  to  say  which  you 
would  like  to  have  him  say — you  ought  to  remember  that  the 
saying  of  the  one,  or  the  forbearing  to  say  the  other,  would 
lose  his  hold  upon  the  North,  and,  by  consequence,  would  lose 
his  capacity  to  serve  you. 

Upon  this  subject  of  moulding  public  opinion,  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact — for  a  well-established  fact  it  is — that  the 
Judge  never  says  your  institution  of  slavery  is  "wrong  ;  he 
never  says  it  is  right,  to  be  sure,  but  he  never  says  it  is  wrong. 
There  is  not  a  public  man  in  the  United  States,  I  believe,  with 
the  exception  of  Senator  Douglas,  who  has  not,  at  some  time 
in  his  life,  declared  his  opinion  whether  the  thing  is  right  or 
wrong  ;  but  Senator  Douglas  never  declares  it  is  wrong.  He 
leaves  himself  at  perfect  liberty  to  do  all  in  your  favor  which 
he  would  be  hindered  from  doing  if  he  were  to  declare  the 
thing  to  be  wrong.  On  the  contrary,  he  takes  all  the  chances 
that  he  has  for  inveigling  the  sentiment  of  the  North,  opposed 
to  slavery,  into  your  support,  by  never  saying  it  is  right. 
This  you  ought  to  set  down  to  his  credit.  You  ought  to  give 
him  full  credit  for  this  much,  little  though  it  be,  in  comparison 
to  the  whole  which  he  does  for  you. 

Some  other  things  I  will  ask  your  attention  to.  He  said 
upon  the  floor  of  the  United  States  Senate,  and  he  has  re 
peated  it  as  I  understand  a  great  many  times,  that  he  does  not 
care  whether  slavery  is  "  voted  up  or  voted  down."  This 
again  shows  you,  or  ought  to  show  you,  if  you  would  reason 
upon  it,  that  he  does  not  believe  it  to  be  wrong,  for  a  man 
may  say,  when  he  sees  nothing  wrong  in  a  thing,  that  he  does 
not  care  whether  it  be  voted  up  or  voted  down  ;  but  no  man 
can  logically  say  that  lie  cares  not  whether  a  thing  goes  up  or 
goes  down,  which  to  him  appears  to  be  wrong.  You  thcrer 


286  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 


fore  have  a  demonstration  in  this,  that  to  Judge  Douglas's 
mind  your  favorite  institution  which  you  would  have  spread 
out,  and  made  perpetual,  is  no  wrong. 

Another  thing  he  tells  you,  in  a  speech  made  at  Memphis,  in 
Tennessee,  shortly  after  the  canvass  in  Illinois,  last  year.  lie 
there  distinctly  told  the  people,  that  there  was  a  "  line  drawn 
by  the  Almighty  across  this  continent,  on  the  one  side  of 
which  the  soil  must  always  be  cultivated  by  slaves  ;"  that  he 
did  not  pretend  to  know  exactly  where  that  line  was,  but  that 
there  was  such  a  line.  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to  (hat 
proposition  again  ;  that  there  is  one  portion  of  this  continent 
where  the  Almighty  has  designed  the  soil  shall  always  be  cul 
tivated  by  slaves  ;  that  its  being  cultivated  by  slaves  at  that 
place  is  right ;  that  it  has  the  direct  sympathy  and  authority 
of  the  Almighty.  Whenever  you  can  get  these  Northern  au 
diences  to  adopt  the  opinion  that  slavery  is  right  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Ohio  ;  whenever  you  can  get  them,  in  pursuance  of 
Douglas's  views,  to  adopt  that  sentiment,  they  will  very 
readily  make  the  other  argument,  which  is  perfectly  logical, 
that  that  which  is  right  on  that  side  of  the  Ohio,  cannot  be 
wrong  on  this,  and  that  if  you  have  that  property  on  that  side 
of  the  Ohio,  under  the  seal  and  stamp  of  the  Almighty,  when 
by  any  means  it  escapes  over  here,  it  is  wrong  to  have  consti 
tutions  and  laws  "  to  devil"  you  about  it.  So  Douglas  is 
moulding  the  public  opinion  of  the  North,  first  to  say  that  the 
thing  is  right  in  your  State  over  the  Ohio  river,  and  hence  to 
say  that  that  which  is  right  there  is  not  wrong  here,  and  that 
all  laws  and  constitutions  here,  recognizing  it  as  being  wrong, 
are  themselves  wrong,  and  ought  to  be  repealed  and  abrogated. 
He  will  tell  you,  men  of  Ohio,  that  if  you  choose  here  to  have 
laws  against  slavery,  it  is  in  conformity  to  the  idea  that  your 
climate  is  not  suited  to  it,  that  your  climate  is  not  suited  to 
slave  labor,  and  therefore  you  have  constitutions  and  laws 
against  it. 

Let  us  attend  to  that  argument  for  a  little  while  and  see  if 
it  be  sound.  You  do  not  raise  sugar-cane  (except  the  new- 
fashioned  sugar-cane,  and  you  won't  raise  that  long),  but  they  do 
raise  it  in  Louisiana.  You  don't  raise  it  in  Ohio  because  yon 
can't  raise  it  profitably,  because  the  climate  don't  suit  it. 
They  do  raise  it  in  Louisiana  because  there  it  is  profitable. 
Now,  Douglas  will  tell  you  that  is  precisely  the  slavery  ques- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  287 

tion.  That  they  do  have  slaves  there  because  they  are  profi 
table,  and  you  don't  have  them  here  because  they  are  not 
profitable.  If  that  is  so,  then  it  leads  to  dealing  with  the  one 
precisely  as  with  the  other.  Is  there  then  anything  in  the 
constitution  or  laws  of  Ohio  against  raising  sugar-cane?  Have 
you  found  it  necessary  to  put  any  such  provision  in  your  law? 
Surely  not !  No  man  desires  to  raise  sugar-cane  in  Ohio  ;  but, 
if  any  man  did  desire  to  do  so,  you  would  say  it  was  a  tyran 
nical  law  that  forbids  his  doing  so,  and  whenever  you 
shall  agree  with  Douglas,  whenever  your  minds  are  brought  to 
adopt  his  arguments,  as  surely  you  will  have  reached  the 
conclusion,  that  although  slavery  is  not  profitable  in  Ohio, 
if  any  man  wants  it,  it  is  wrong  to  him  not  to  let  him  have 
it. 

In  this  matter  Judge  Douglas  is  preparing  the  public  mind 
for  you  of  Kentucky,  to  make  perpetual  that  good  thing  in 
your  estimation,  about  which  you  and  I  differ. 

In  this  connection  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  another 
thing.  I  believe  it  is  safe  to  assert  that  five  years  ago,  no  living 
man  had  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  negro  had  no  share  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Let  me  state  that  again  : 
five  years  ago  no  living  man  had  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  negro  had  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence.  If  there  is  in  this  large  audience  any  man  who  ever 
knew  of  that  opinion  being  put  upon  paper  as  much  as  five 
years  ago,  I  will  be  obliged  to  him  now  or  at  a  subsequent  time 
to  show  it. 

If  that  be  true,  I  wish  you  then  to  note  the  next  fact ;  that 
within  the  space  of  five  years  Senator  Douglas,  in  the  argu 
ment  of  this  question,  has  got  his  entire  party,  so  far  as  I 
know,  without  exception,  to  join  in  saying  that  the  negro  has 
no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  there  be 
now  in  all  these  United  States  one  Douglas  man  that  does  not 
say  this,  I  have  been  unable  upon  any  occasion  to  scare  him 
up.  Now,  if  none  of  you  said  this  five  years  ago,  and  all  of 
you  say  it  now,  that  is  a  matter  that  you  Kentuckians  ought  to 
note.  That  is  a  vast  change  in  the  Northern  public  senti 
ment  upon  that  question. 

Of  what  tendency  is  that  change  ?  The  tendency  of  that 
change  is  to  bring  the  public  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  when 
men  are  spoken  of,  the  negro  is  not  meant ;  that  when  negroes 


288  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

are  spoken  of,  brutes  alone  are  contemplated.  That  change  in 
public  sentiment  has  already  degraded  the  black  man  in  the 
estimation  of  Douglas  and  his  followers  from  the  condition  of 
a  man  of  some  sort,  and  assigned  to  him  the  condition  of 
a  brute.  Now,  you  Kentuckians  ought  to  give  Douglas  credit 
for  this.  That  is  the  largest  possible  stride  that  can  be  made 
in  regard  to  the  perpetuation  of  your  thing  of  slavery. 

A  voice — "  Speak  to  Ohio  men  and  not  to  Kentuckians !" 

Mr.  Lincoln — I  beg  permission  to  speak  as  I  please. 

In  Kentucky,  perhaps,  in  many  of  the  slave  States  certain 
ly,  you  are  trying  to  establish  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  by 
reference  to  the  Bible.  You  are  trying  to  show  that  slavery 
existed  in  the  Bible  times  by  Divine  ordinance.  Now,  Doug 
las  is  wiser  than  you,  for  your  own  benefit,  upon  that  subject. 
Douglas  knows  that  whenever  you  establish  that  slavery  was 
right  by  the  Bible,  it  will  occur  that  that  slavery  was  the 
slavery  of  the  white  man — of  men  without  reference  to  color — 
and  he  knows  very  well  that  you  may  entertain  that  idea  in 
Kentucky  as  much  as  you  please,  but  you  will  never  win  any 
Northern  support  upon  it.  He  makes  a  wiser  argument  for 
you  ;  he  makes  the  argument  that  the  slavery  of  the  black  man, 
the  slavery  of  the  man  who  has  a  skin  of  a  different  color 
from  your  own,  is  right.  He  thereby  brings  to  your  support 
Northern  voters  who  could  not  for  a  moment  be  brought  by 
your  own  argument  of  the  Bible-right  of  slavery.  Will  you 
not  give  him  credit  for  that?  Will  you  not  say  that  in  this 
matter  he  is  more  wisely  for  you  than  you  are  for  yourselves? 

Now,  having  established  with  his  entire  party  this  doctrine 
— having  been  entirely  successful  in  that  branch  of  his  efforts 
in  your  behalf,  he  is  ready  for  another. 

At  this  same  meeting  at  Memphis,  he  declared  that,  while 
in  all  contests  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man,  he  was 
for  the  white  man,  in  all  questions  between  the  negro  and  the 
crocodile  he  was  for  the  negro.  He  did  not  make  that  declara 
tion  accidentally  at  Memphis.  He  made  it  a  great  many  times 
in  the  canvass  in  Illinois  last  year  (though  I  don't  know  that 
it  was  reported  in  any  of  his  speeches  there),  but  he  frequently 
made  it.  I  believe  he  repeated  it  at  Columbus,  and. I  should 
not  wonder  if  he  repeated  it  here.  It  is,  then,  a  deliberate 
way  of  expressing  himself  upon  that  subject.  It  is  a  matter  of 
mature  deliberation  with  him  thus  to  express  himself  upon 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  289 

that  point  of  his  case.      It,  therefore,  requires  some  deliberate 
attention. 

The  first  inference  seems  to  be,  that  if  you  do  not  enslave 
the  negro  you  are  wronging  the  white  man  in  some  way  or 
other ;  and  that  whoever  is  opposed  to  the  negro  being 
enslaved,  is,  in  some  way  or  other,  against  the  white  man.  Is 
not  that  a  falsehood  I  If  there  was  a  necessary  conflict  be 
tween  the  white  man  and  the  negro,  I  should  be  for  the  white 
man  as  much  as  Judge  Douglas  ;  but  I  say  there  is  no  such 
necessary  conflict.  I  say  that  there  is  room  enough  for  us  all 
to  be  free,  and  that  it  not  only  does  not  wrong  the  white  man 
that  the  negro  should  be  free,  but  it  positively  wrongs  the  mass 
of  the  white  men  that  the  negro  should  be  enslaved  ;  that  the 
muss  of  white  men  are  really  injured  by  the  effects  of  slave 
labor  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fields  of  their  own  labor. 

But  I  do  not  desire  to  dwell  upon  this  branch  of  the  ques 
tion  more  than  to  say  that  this  assumption  of  his  is  false,  and 
I  do  hope  that  that  fallacy  will  not  long  prevail  in  the  minds 
of  intelligent  white  men.  At  all  events,  you  ought  to  thank 
Judge  Douglas  for  it.  It  is  for  your  benefit  it  is  made. 

The  other  branch  of  it  is,  that  in  a  struggle  between  the 
negro  and  the  crocodile,  he  is  for  the  negro.  Well,  I  don't 
know  that  there  is  any  struggle  between  the  negro  and  croco 
dile,  either.  I  suppose  that  if  a  crocodile  (or  as  we  old  Ohio 
river  boatmen  used  to  call  them,  alligators)  should  come 
across  a  white  man  he  would  kill  him  if  he  could,  and  so  he 
would  a  negro.  But  what,  at  last,  is  this  proposition  ?  I  be 
lieve  that  it  is  a  sort  of  proposition  in  proportion,  which  may 
be  stated  thus:  "  As  the  negro  is  to  the  white  man,  so  is  the 
crocodile  to  the  negro  ;  and  as  the  negro  may  rightfully  treat 
the  crocodile  as  a  beast  or  reptile,  so  the  white  man  may  right 
fully  treat  the  negro  as  a  beast  or  a  reptile."  That  is  really 
the  "  knip"  of  all  that  argument  of  his. 

Now,  my  brother  Kentuckians,  who  believe  in  this,  you 
ought  to  thank  Judge  Douglas  for  having  put  that  in  a  much 
more  taking  way  than  any  of  yourselves  have  done. 

Again,  Douglas's  great  principle,  "  popular  sovereignty,"  as 
he  calls  it,  gives  you,  by  natural  consequence,  the  revival  of 
the  slave-trade  whenever  you  want  it.  If  you  question  this, 
listen  awhile,  consider  awhile,  what  I  shall  advance  in  support 
of  that  proposition. 

13 


290  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 


He  says  that  it  is  the  sacred  right  of  the  man  who  goes  into 
the  territories  to  have  slavery  if  he  wants  it.  Grant  that 
for  argument's  sake.  Is  it  not  the  sacred  right  of  the  man 
who  don't  go  there  equally  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  he  wants 
them  I"  Can  you  point  out  the  difference?  The  man  who 
goes  into  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  or  any  other 
new  territory,  with  the  sacred  right  of  taking  a  slave  there 
which  belongs  to  him,  would  certainly  have  no  more  right  to  take 
one  there  than  I  would,  who  own  no  slave,  but  who  would  desire 
to  buy  one  and  take  him  there.  You  will  not  say — you,  the 
friends  of  Judge  Douglas — that  the  man  who  does  not  own  a 
slave,  has  an  equal  right  to  buy  one  and  take  him  to  the  terri 
tory,  as  the  other  does  ? 

A  voice — "  I  want  to  ask  a  question.  Don't  foreign  nations 
interfere  with  the  slave-trade  ?" 

Mr.  Lincoln — Well !  I  understand  it  to  be  a  principle  of 
Democracy  to  whip  foreign  nations  whenever  they  interfere 
with  us. 

Voice — "  I  only  asked  for  information.  I  am  a  Republican 
myself." 

Mr.  Lincoln — You  and  I  will  be  on  the  best  terms  in  the 
world,  but  I  do  not  wish  to  be  diverted  from  the  point  I  was 
trying  to  press. 

I  say  that  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty,  establishing  his 
sacred  right  in  the  people,  if  you  please,  if  carried  to  its  logi 
cal  conclusion,  gives  equally  the  sacred  right  to  the  people  of 
the  States  or  the  territories  themselves  to  buy  slaves,  where- 
ever  they  can  buy  them  cheapest ;  and  if  any  man  can  show 
a  distinction,  I  should  like  to  hear  him  try  it.  If  any  man 
can  show  how  the  people  of  Kansas  have  a  better  right  to 
slaves  because  they  want  them,  than  the  people  of  Georgia 
have  to  buy  them  in  Africa,  I  want  him  to  do  it.  I  think  it 
cannot  be  done.  If  it  is  "  popular  sovereignty"  for  the  peo 
ple  to  have  slaves  because  they  want  them,  it  is  popular 
sovereignty  for  them  to  buy  them  in  Africa,  because  they  de 
sire  to  do  so. 

I  know  that  Douglas  has  recently  made  a  little  effort — not 
seeming  to  notice  that  he  had  a  different  theory — has  made  an 
effort  to  get  rid  of  that.  He  has  written  a  letter,  addressed 
to  somebody  I  believe  who  resides  in  Iowa,  declaring  his  oppo 
sition  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  that  prohibit  the  African  slave' 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  291 

trade.  He  bases  his  opposition  to  such  repeal  upon  the 
ground  that  these  laws  are  themselves  one  of  the  compromises 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Now  it  would  be 
very  interesting  to  see  Judge  Douglas  or  any  of  his  friends 
turn  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  point  out 
that  compromise,  to  show  where  there  is  any  compromise  in 
the  Constitution,  or  provision  in  the  Constitution,  express  or 
implied,  by  which  the  administrators  of  that  Constitution  are 
under  any  obligation  to  repeal  the  African  slave-trade.  I 
know,  or  at  least  I  think  I  know,  that  the  framers  of  that 
Constitution  did  expect  that  the  African  slave-trade  would  be 
abolished  at  the  end  of  twenty  years,  to  which  time  their  pro 
hibition  against  its  being  abolished  extended.  I  think  there  is 
abundant  contemporaneous  history  to  show  that  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  expected  it  to  be  abolished.  But  wrhile 
they  so  expected,  they  gave  nothing  for  that  expectation,  and 
they  put  no  provision  in  the  Constitution  requiring  it  should 
be  so  abolished.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  per 
sons  as  the  States  shall  see  fit  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohibited, 
but  a  certain  tax  might  be  levied  upon  such  importation.  But 
what  was  to  be  done  after  that  time?  The  Constitution  is  as 
silent  about  that  as  it  is  silent,  personally,  about  myself. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  it  about  that  subject — there  is 
only  the  expectation  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  that 
the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  the  end  of  that  time, 
and  they  expected  it  would  be  abolished,  owing  to  public  sen 
timent,  before  that  time,  and  they  put  that  provision  in,  in 
order  that  it  should  not  be  abolished  before  that  time,  for  rea 
sons  which  I  suppose  they  thought  to  be  sound  ones,  but 
which  I  will  not  now  try  to  enumerate  before  you. 

But  while  they  expected  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished 
at  that  time,  they  expected  that  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the 
new  territories  should  also  be  restricted.  It  is  as  easy  to 
prove  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  expected  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  from  ex 
tending  into  the  new  territories,  as  it  is  to  prove  that  it  was 
expected  that  the  slave-trade  should  be  abolished.  Both  these 
things  were  expected.  One  was  no  more  expected  than  the 
other,  and  one  was  no  more  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution 
than  the  other.  There  was  nothing  said  in  the  Constitution 
in  regard  to  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  territories.  I  grant 


292  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

that,  but  there  was  something  very  important  said  about  it  by 
the  same  generation  of  men  inutile  adoption  of  the  old  ordi 
nance  of  '87,  through  the  influence  of  which  you  here  in  Ohio, 
our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  we  in  Illinois,  our  neighbors  in  Mi 
chigan  and  Wisconsin  are  happy,  prosperous,  teeming  millions 
of  free  men.  That  generation  of  men,  though  not  to  the  full 
extent  members  of  the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitu 
tion,  were  to  some  extent  members  of  that  Convention,  hold 
ing  seats  at  the  same  time  in  one  body  and  the  other,  so  that 
if  there  was  any  compromise  on  either  of  these  subjects,  the 
strong  evidence  is  that  that  compromise  was  in  favor  of  the 
restriction  of  slavery  from  the  new  territories. 

But  Douglas  says  that  he  is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  re 
peal  of  those  laws  ;  because,  in  his  view,  it  is  a  compromise  of 
the  Constitution.  You  Kentuckians,  no  doubt,  are  somewhat 
offended  with  that !  You  ought  not  to  be!  You  ought  to  be 
patient !  You  ought  to  know  that  if  he  said  less  than  that,  he 
would  lose  the  power  of  "  lugging"  the  Northern  States  to 
your  support.  Keally,  what  you  would  push  him  to  do  would 
take  from  him  his  entire  power  to  serve  you.  And  you  ought 
to  remember  how  long,  by  precedent,  Judge  Douglas  holds 
himself  obliged  to  stick  by  compromises.  You  ought  to  re 
member  that  by  the  time  you  yorrselves  think  you  are  ready 
to  inaugurate  measures  for  the  revival  of  the  African  slave- 
trade,  that  sufficient  time  will  have  arrived,  by  precedent,  for 
Judge  Douglas  to  break  through  that  compromise.  He  says 
now  nothing  more  strong  than  he  said  in  1849,  when  he  de 
clared  in  favor  of  the  Missouri  compromise — that  precisely 
four  years  and  a  quarter  after  he  declared  that  compromise  to 
be  a  sacred  thing,  which  "  no  ruthless  hand  would  ever  dare 
to  touch,"  he,  himself,  brought  forward  the  measure  ruth 
lessly  to  destroy  it.  By  a  mere  calculation  of  time  it  will 
only  be  four  years  more  until  he  is  ready  to  take  back  his  pro 
fession  about  the  sacredness  of  the  compromise  abolishing  the 
slave-trade.  Precisely  as  soon  as  you  are  ready  to  have  his 
services  in  that  direction,  by  fair  calculation,  you  may  be  sure 
of  having  them. 

But  you  remember  and  set  down  to  Judge  Douglas's  debt, 
or  discredit,  that  he,  last  year,  said  the  people  of  territories 
can,  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  exclude  your  slaves 
from  those  territories  ;  that  he  declared  by  "  unfriendly  legis- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  293 

lation,"  the  extension  of  your  property  into  the  new  territories 
may  be  cut  off  in  the  teeth  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States. 

He  assumed  that  position  atFreeport,  on  the  27th  of  August, 
1858.  He  said  that  the  people  of  the  territories  can  exclude 
slavery  in  so  many  words.  You  ought,  however,  to  bear  in 
mind  that  he  has  never  said  it  since.  You  may  hunt  in  every 
speech  that  he  has  since  made,  and  he  has  never  used  that  ex 
pression  once.  He  has  never  seemed  to  notice  that  he  is 
stating  his  views  differently  from  what  he  did  then  ;  but,  by 
some  sort  of  accident,  he  has  always  really  stated  it  differently. 
He  has  always  since  then  declared  that  "  the  Constitution  does 
not  carry  slavery  into  the  territories  of  the  United  States  be 
yond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  control  it,  as  other 
property."  Now,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  language  used 
upon  that  former  occasion  and  in  this  latter  day.  There  may 
or  may  not  be  a  difference  in  the  meaning,  but  it  is  worth 
while  considering  whether  there  is  not  also  a  difference  in 
meaning. 

What  is  it  to  exclude  f  Why,  it  is  to  drive  it  out.  It  is  in 
some  way  to  put  it  out  of  the  territory.  It  is  to  force  it  across 
the  line,  or  change  its  character,  so  that  as  property  it  is  out 
of  existence.  But  what  is  the  controlling  it  u  as  other  pro 
perty  *?"  Is  controlling  it  as  other  property  the  same  thing  as 
destroying  it,  or  driving  it  away  *?  I  should  think  not.  I 
should  think  the  controlling  of  it  as  other  property  would  be 
just  about  what  you  in  Kentucky  should  want.  I  understand 
the  controlling  of  property  means  the  controlling  of  it  for  the 
benefit  of  the  owner  of  it.  While  I  have  no  doubt  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  say  "  God  speed"  to 
any  of  the  territorial  legislatures  that  should  thus  control  slave 
property,  they  would  sing  quite  a  different  tune,  if  by  the  pre 
tence  of  controlling  it  they  were  to  undertake  to  pass  laws 
which  virtually  excluded  it,  and  that  upon  a  very  well  known 
principle  to  all  lawyers,  that  what  a  legislature  cannot  directly 
do,  it  cannot  do  by  indirection ;  that  as  the  legislature  has  not 
the  power  to  drive  slaves  out,  they  have  no  power  by  indirec 
tion,  by  tax,  or  by  imposing  burdens  in  any  way  on  that  pro 
perty,  to  effect  the  same  end,  and  that  any  attempt  to  do  so 
would  be  held  by  the  Dred  Scott  court  unconstitutional. 

Douglas  is  not  willing  to  stand  by  his  first  proposition  that 


294  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

they  can  exclude  it,  because  we  have  seen  that  that  proposi 
tion  amounts  to  nothing  more  or  less  than  the  naked  absurdity, 
that  you  may  lawfully  drive  out  that  which  has  a  lawful  right 
to  remain.  He  admitted  at  first  that  the  slave  might  be  law 
fully  taken  into  the  territories  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  yet  asserted  that  he  might  be  lawfully 
driven  out.  That  being  the  proposition,  it  is  the  absurdity  I 
have  stated.  He  is  not  willing  to  stand  in  the  face  of  that 
direct,  naked,  and  impudent  absurdity;  he  has,  therefore, 
modified  his  language  into  that  of  being  "  controlled  as  other 
property." 

The  Kentuckians  don't  like  this  in  Douglas!  I  will  tell 
you  where  it  will  go.  He  now  swears  by  the  court.  He  was 
once  a  leading  man  in  Illinois  to  break  down  a  court,  because 
it  had  made  a  decision  he  did  not  like.  But  he  now  not  only 
swears  by  the  court,  the  courts  having  got  to  working  for  you, 
but  he  denounces  all  men  that  do  not  swear  by  the  courts,  as 
unpatriotic,  as  bad  citizens.  When  one  of  these  acts  of  un 
friendly  legislation  shall  impose  such  heavy  burdens  as  to,  in 
effect,  destroy  property  in  slaves  in  a  territory,  and  show 
plainly  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  in  the  purpose  of  the 
Legislature  to  make  them  so  burdensome,  this  same  Supreme 
Court  will  decide  that  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  he  will 
be  ready  to  say  for  your  benefit,  "  I  swear  by  the  court ;  I 
give  it  up  ;"  and  while  that  is  going  on  he  has  been  getting 
all  his  men  to  swear  by  the  courts,  and  to  give  it  up  with 
him.  In  this  again  he  serves  you  faithfully,  and  as  I  say, 
more  wisely  than  you  serve  yourselves. 

Again  :  I  have  alluded  in  the  beginning  of  these  remarks 
to  the  fact,  that  Judge  Douglas  has  made  great  complaint  of 
my  having  expressed  the  opinion  that  this  government  "  can 
not  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free."  He  has 
complained  of  Seward  for  using  different  language,  and  de 
claring  that  there  is  an  "  irrepressible  conflict "  between  the 
principles  of  free  and  slave  labor.  [A  voice — "  He  says  it  is 
not  original  with  Seward.  That  it  is  original  with  Lincoln."! 
I  will  attend  to  that  immediately,  sir.  Since  that  time,  Hick- 
man,  of  Pennsylvania,  expressed  the  same  sentiment.  He  has 
never  denounced  Mr.  Hickman :  why  ?  There  is  a  little 
chance,  notwithstanding  that  opinion  in  the  mouth  of  Hick 
man,  that  he  may  yet  be  a  Douglas  man.  That  is  the  dif- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  295 

ference !  It  is  not  unpatriotic  to  hold  that  opinion,  if  a  man 
is  a  Douglas  man. 

But  neither  I  nor  Seward,  nor  Hickman,  is  entitled  to  the 
enviable  or  unenviable  distinction  of  having  first  expressed 
that  idea.  The  same  idea  was  expressed  by  the  Richmond 
Enquirer,  in  Virginia,  in  1856 — quite  two  years  before  it  was 
expressed  by  the  first  of  us.  And  while  Douglas  was  plu 
ming  himself,  that  in  his  conflict  with  my  humble  self,  last 
year,  he  had  "squelched  out"  that  fatal  heresy,  as  he  de 
lighted  to  call  it,  and  had  suggested  that  if  he  only  had  had  a 
chance  to  be  in  New- York  and  meet  Seward,  he  would  have 
66  squelched  "  it  there  also,  it  never  occurred  to  him  to  breathe 
a  word  against  Pryor.  I  don't  think  that  you  can  discover 
that  Douglas  ever  talked  of  going  to  Virginia  to  "  squelch  " 
out  that  idea  there.  No.  More  than  that,  that  same 
Koger  A.  Pryor  was  brought  to  Washington  city  and  made 
the  editor  of  the  par  excellence  Douglas  paper,  after  making 
use  of  that  expression,  which,  in  us,  is  so  unpatriotic  and 
heretical.  From  all  this,  my  Kentucky  friends  may  see  that 
this  opinion  is  heretical  in  his  view  only  when  it  is  expressed 
by  men  suspected  of  a  desire  that  the  country  shall  all  become 
free,  and  not  when  expressed  by  those  fairly  known  to  enter 
tain  the  desire  that  the  whole  country  shall  become  slave. 
When  expressed  by  that  class  of  men,  it  is  in  nowise  offensive 
to  him.  In  this,  again,  my  friends  of  Kentucky,  you  have 
Judge  Douglas  with  you. 

There  is  another  reason  why  you  Southern  people  ought  to 
nominate  Douglas  at  your  Convention  at  Charleston.  That 
reason  is  the  wonderful  capacity  of  the  man ;  the  power  he 
has  of  doing  what  would  seem  to  be  impossible.  Let  me  call 
your  attention  to  one  of  these  apparently  impossible  things. 

Douglas  had  three  or  four  very  distinguished  men  of  the 
most  extreme  anti-slavery  views  of  any  men  in  the  Republican 
party,  expressing  their  desire  for 'his  re-election  to  the  Senate 
last  year.  That  would,  of  itself,  have  seemed  to  be  a  little 
wonderful ;  but  that  wonder  is  heightened  when  we  see  lhat 
Wise,  of  Virginia,  a  man  opposed  to  them,  a  man  who  believes 
in  the  Divine  right  of  slavery,  was  also  expressing  his  desire 
that  Douglas  should  be  re-elected  ;  that  another  man  that  may 
be  said  to  be  kindred  to  Wise,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  the  Vice- 
President,  and  of  your  own  State,  was  also  agreeing  with  the 


296  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

anti-slavery  men  in  the  North,  that  Douglas  ought  to  be  re- 
elected.  Still,  to  heighten  the  wonder,  a  Senator  from  Ken 
tucky,  who  I  have  always  loved  with  an  affection  as  tender 
and  endearing  as  I  have  ever  loved  any  man  ;  who  was  op 
posed  to  the  anti-slavery  men  for  reasons  which  seemed  suffi 
cient  to  him,  and  equally  opposed  to  Wise  and  Breckinridge, 
was  writing  letters  into  Illinois  to  secure  the  re-election  of 
Douglas.  Now  that  all  these  conflicting  elements  should  be 
brought,  while  at  daggers'  point,  with  one  another,  to  support 
him,  is  a  feat  that  is  worthy  for  you  to  note  and  consider.  It 
is  quite  probable  that  each  of  these  classes  of  men  thought, 
by  the  re-election  of  Douglas,  their  peculiar  views  would  gain 
something  ;  it  is  probable  that  the  anti-slavery  men  thought 
their  views  would  gain  something ;  that  Wise  and  Breckin 
ridge  thought  so  too,  as  regards  their  opinions ;  that  Mr. 
Crittenden  thought  that  his  views  would  gain  something,  al 
though  he  was  opposed  to  both  these  other  men.  It  is  proba 
ble  that  each  and  all  of  them  thought  that  they  were  using 
Douglas,  and  it  is  yet  an  unsolved  problem  whether  he  was  not 
using  them  all.  If  he  was,  then  it  is  for  you  to  consider 
whether  that  power  to  perform  wonders,  is  one  for  you  lightly 
to  throw  away. 

There  is  one  other  thing  that  I  will  say  to  you  in  this  rela 
tion.  It  is  but  my  opinion  :  I  give  it  to  you  without  a  fee.  It 
is  my  opinion  that  it  is  for  you  to  take  him  or  be  defeated  ;  and 
that  if  you  do  take  him  you  may  be  beaten.  You  will  surely 
be  beaten  if  you  do  not  take  him.  We,  the  Republicans  and 
others  forming  the  opposition  of  the  country,  intend  to  "stand 
by  our  guns,"  to  be  patient  and  firm,  and  in  the  long  run  to 
beat  you  whether  you  take  him  or  not.  We  know  that  before 
we  fairly  beat  you,  we  have  to  beat  you  both  together.  We 
know  that  you  are  "  all  of  a  feather,"  and  that  we  have  to 
beat  you  altogether,  and  we  expect  to  do  it.  We  don't  in 
tend  to  be  very  impatient  about  it.  We  mean  to  be  as  delib 
erate  and  calm  about  it  as  it  is  possible  to  be,  but  as  firm  and 
resolved  as  it  is  possible  for  men  to  be.  When  we  do  as  we 
say,  beat  you,  you  perhaps  want  to  know  what  we  will  do 
with  you. 

I  will  tell  you,  so  far  as  I  am  authorized  to  speak  for  the 
opposition,  what  we  mean  to  do  with  you.  We  mean  to  treat 
you,  as  near  as  we  possibly  can,  as  Washington,  Jefferson,  and 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  297 

Madiscn  treated  you.  We  mean  to  leave  you  alone,  and  in 
no  way  to  interfere  with  your  institution  ;  to  abide  by  all  and 
every  compromise  of  the  Constitution,  and,  in  a  word,  coming 
back  to  the  original  proposition,  to  treat  you,  so  far  as  degen 
erated  men  (if  we  have  degenerated)  may,  according  to  the 
examples  of  those  noble  father? — Washington,  Jefferson,  and 
Madison.  We  meanjx>  remember  that  you  are  as  good  as 
we  ;  that  there  is  no  difference  between  us  other  than  the  dif 
ference  of  circumstances.  We  mean  to  recognize  and  bear  in 
mind  always  that  you  have  as  good  hearts  in  your  bosoms  as 
other  people,  or  as  we  claim  to  have,  and  treat  you  accord 
ingly.  We  mean  to  marry  your  girls  when  we  have  a  chance 
— the  white  ones  I  mean,  and  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you 
that  I  once  did  have  a  chance  in  that  way. 

I  have  told  you  what  we  mean  to  do.  I  want  to  know, 
now,  when  that  thing  takes  place,  what  do  you  mean  to  do. 
I  often  hear  it  intimated  that  you  mean  to  divide  the  Union 
whenever  a  Republican,  or  anything  like  it,  is  elected  President 
of  the  United  States.  [A  voice — "That  is  so."]  "That  is 
so."  one  of  them  says  ;  I  wonder  if  he  is  a  Kentuckian  1  [A 
voice — "He  is  a  Douglas  man."]  Well,  then,  I  want  to  know 
what  you  are  going  to  do  with  your  half  of  it  t  Are  you  go 
ing  to  split  the  Ohio  down  through,  and  push  your  half  off  a 
piece  t  Or  are  you  going  to  keep  it  right  alongside  of  us 
outrageous  fellows  ^  Or  are  you  going  to  build  up  a  wall 
some  way  between  your  country  and  ours,  by  which  that  mov 
able  property  of  yours  can't  come  over  here  any  more,  to  the 
danger  of  your  losing  it  *!  Do  you  think  you  can  better  your 
selves  on  that  subject,  by  leaving  us  here  under  no  obligation 
whatever  to  return  those  specimens  of  your  movable  property 
that  come  hither"?  You  have  divided  the  Union  because  we 
would  not  do  right  with  you,  as  you  think,  upon  that  subject ; 
when  we  cease  to  be  under  obligations  to  do  anything  for  you, 
how  much  better  off  do  you  think  you  will  be  ?  Will  you 
make  war  upon  us  and  kill  us  all  ?  Why,  gentlemen,  I  think 
you  are  as  gallant  and  as  brave  men  as  live  ;  that  you  can 
fight  as  bravely  in  a  good  cause,  man  for  man,  as  any  other 
people  living  ;  that  you  have  shown  yourselves  capable  of  this 
upon  various  occasions  ;  but  man  for  man,  you  are  not  better 
than  we  are,  and  there  are  not  so  many  of  you  as  there  are  of 
us.  You  will  never  make  much  of  a  hand  at  whipping  us. 


298  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

If  we  were  fewer  in  numbers  than  you,  I  think  that  you  could 
whip  us  ;  if  we  were  equal  it  would  likely  be  a  drawn  battle  ; 
but  being  inferior  in  numbers,  you  will  make  nothing  by  at 
tempting  to  master  us. 

But  perhaps  I  have  addressed  myself  as  long,  or  longer,  to 
the  Kentuckians  than  I  ought  to  have  done.  Inasmuch  as  I 
have  said  that  whatever  course  you  take  we  intend  in  the  end 
to  beat  you.  I  propose  to  address  a  few  remarks  to  our 
friends,  by  way  of  discussing  with  them  the  best  means  of 
keeping  that  promise,  that  I  have  in  good  faith  made. 

It  may  appear  a  little  episodical  for  me  to  mention  the 
topic  of  which  I  shall  speak  now.  If,  is  a  favorable  proposi 
tion  of  Douglas's  that  the  interference  of  the  general  govern 
ment,  through  the  ordinance  of  '87,  or  through  any  other  act 
of  the  general  government,  never  ha«  made  or  ever  can  make 
a  Free  State;  that  the  ordinance  of  '87  did  not  make  Free 
States  of  Ohio,  Indiana  or  Illinois.  That  these  States  are 
free  upon  his  "great  principle"  of  popular  sovereignty,  be 
cause  the  people  of  those  several  States  have  chosen  to  make 
them  so.  At  Columbus,  and  probably  here,  he  undertook  to 
compliment  the  people,  that  they  themselves  have  made  the 
State  of  Ohio  free,  and  that  the  ordinance  of '87  was  not  en 
titled  in  any  degree  to  divide  the  honor  with  them.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  did  make  her 
free  according  to  their  own  will  and  judgment,  but  let  the 
facts  be  remembered. 

In  1802,  I  believe,  it  was  you  who  made  your  first  Con 
stitution,  with  the  cause  prohibiting  slavery,  and  you  did  it  I 
suppose  very  nearly  unanimously  ;  but  you  should  bear  in 
mind  that  you — speaking  of  you  as  one  people — that  you  did 
so,  unembarrassed  by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution 
among  you ;  that'  you  made  it  a  Free  State,  not  with  the  em 
barrassment  upon  you  of  already  having  among  you  many 
slaves,  which  if  they  had  been  here,  and  you  had  sought  to 
make  a  Free  State,  you  would  not  know  what  to  do  with.  If 
they  had  been  among  you,  embarrassing  difficulties,  most 
probably,  would  have  induced  you  to  tolerate  a  slave  constitu 
tion  instead  of  a  free  one,  as  indeed  these  very  difficulties  have 
constrained  every  people  on  this  continent  who  have  adopted 
slavery. 

Pray  what  was  it  that  made  you   free'?     What  kept  you 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  299 

free  ?  Did  you  not  find  your  country  free  when  you  came  to 
decide  that  Ohio  should  be  a  Free  State  ?  It  is  important  to 
inquire  by  what  reason  you  found  it  so?  Let  us  take  an 
illustration  between  the  States  of  Ohio  and  Kentucky.  Ken 
tucky  is  separated  by  this  river  Ohio,  not  a  mile  wide.  A 
portion  of  Kentucky,  by  reason  of  the  course  of  the  Ohio,  is 
further  north  than  this  portion  of  Ohio  in  which  we  now 
stand.  Kentucky  is  entirely  covered  with  slavery — Ohio  is 
free  from  it.  What  made  that  difference '?  Was  it  climate? 
No  !  A  portion  of  Kentucky  was  further  north  than  this  por 
tion  of  Ohio.  Was  it  soil  ?  No  ?  There  is  nothing  in  the 
soil  of  the  one  more  favorable  to  slave  labor  than  the  other. 
It  was  not  climate  or  soil  that  caused  one  side  of  the  line  to 
be  entirely  covered  with  slavery  and  the  other  side  free  of  it. 
What  was  it  ?  Study  over  it.  Tell  us,  if  you  can,  in  all  the 
range  of  conjecture,  if  there  be  any  thing  you  can  conceive  of 
that  made  that  difference,  other  than  that  there  was  no  law 
of  any  sort  keeping  it  out  of  Kentucky,  while  the  ordinance 
of  '87  kept  it  out  of  Ohio.  If  there  is  any  other  reason  than 
this,  I  confess  that  it  is  wholly  beyond  rny  po\ver  to  conceive 
of  it.  This,  then,  I  oiler  to  combat  the  idea  that  that  ordin 
ance  has  never  made  any  State  free. 

I  don't  stop  at  this  illustration.  I  come  to  the  State  of  In 
diana  :  and  what  I  have  said  as  between  Kentucky  and  Ohio, 
I  repeat  as  between  Indiana  and  Kentucky ;  it  is  equally  ap 
plicable.  One  additional  argument  is  applicable  also  to 
Indiana.  In  her  territorial  condition  she  more  than  once 
petitioned  Congress  to  abrogate  the  ordinance  entirely,  or  at 
least  so  far  as  to  suspend  its  operation  for  a  time,  in  order 
that  they  should  exercise  the  "  popular  sovereignty  "  of  hav 
ing  slaves  if  they  wanted  them.  The  men  then  controlling 
the  general  government,  imitating  the  men  of  the  Revolution, 
refused  Indiana  that  privilege.  And  so  we  have  the  evidence 
that  Indiana  supposed  she  could  have  slaves,  if  it  were  not  for 
that  ordinance  ;  that  she  besought  Congress  to  put  that  bar 
rier  out  of  the  way  ;  that  Congress  refused  to  do  so,  and  it  all 
ended  at  last  in  Indiana  being  a  free  State.  Tell  me  not, 
then,  that  the  ordinance  of  '87  had  nothing  to  do  with 
making  Indiana  a  free  State,  when  we  find  some  men  chafing 
against  and  only  restrained  by  that  barrier. 

Come   down    again    to    our  State  of   Illinois.      The  great 


300  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

northwest  territory,  including  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michi 
gan,  and  Wisconsin,  was  acquired  first,  I  believe,  by  the  Brit 
ish  government,  in  part  at  least,  from  the  French.  Before 
the  establishment  of  our  independence  it  became  a  part  of 
Virginia,  enabling  Virginia  after  to  transfer  it  to  the  general 
government.  There  were  French  settlements  in  what  is  now 
Illinois,  and  at  the  same  time  there  were  French  settlements 
in  what  is  now  Missouri — in  the  tract  of  country  that  was  not 
purchased  till  about  1803.  In  these  French  settlements  negro 
slavery  had  existed  for  many  years — perhaps  more  than  a 
hundred,  if  not  as  much  as  two  hundred  years — at  Kaskaskia, 
in  Illinois,  and  at  St.  Genevieve,  or  Cape  Girardeau,  perhaps, 
in  Missouri.  The  number  of  slaves  was  not  very  great,  but 
there  was  about  the  same  number  in  each  place.  They  were 
there  when  we  acquired  the  territory.  There  was  no  effort 
made  to  break  up  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  and  even 
the  ordinance  of  1787  was  not  so  enforced  as  to  destroy 
slavery  in  Illinois ;  nor  did  the  ordinance  apply  to  Missouri 
at  all. 

What  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to,  at  this  point,  is  that 
Illinois  and  Missouri  came  into  the  Union  about  the  same 
time,  Illinois  in  the  latter  part  of  1818,  and  Missouri,  after  a 
struggle,  I  believe  sometime  in  1820.  They  had  been  filling 
up  with  American  people  about  the  same  period  of  time ; 
their  progress  enabling  them  to  come  into  the  Union  about  the 
same  time.  At  the  end  of  ten  years,  in  which  they  had  been 
so  preparing  (for  it  was  about  that  period  of  time),  the  num 
ber  of  slaves  in  Illinois  had  actually  decreased  ;  while  in  Mis 
souri,  beginning  with  very  few,  at  the  end  of  that  ten  years 
there  were  about  ten  thousand.  This  being  so,  and  it  being 
remembered  that  Missouri  and  Illinois  are,  to  a  certain  ex 
tent,  in  the  same  parallel  of  latitude — that  the  northern  half 
of  Missouri  and  the  southern  half  of  Illinois  are  in  the  same 
parallel  of  latitude — so  that  climate  would  have  the  same 
effect  upon  one  as  upon  the  other,  and  that  in  the  soil  there 
is  no  material  difference,  so  far  as  bears  upon  the  question  o£ 
slavery  being  settled  upon  one  or  the  other — there  being  none 
of  those  natural  causes  to  produce  a  difference  in  filling  them, 
and  yet  there  being  a  broad  difference  in  their  filling  up, 
we  are  led  again  to  inquire  what  was  the  cause  of  that 
difference  ? 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  301 

It  is  most  natural  to  say  that  in  Missouri  there  was  no  law 
to  keep  that  country  from  filling  up  with  slaves,  while  in  Illi 
nois  there  was  the  ordinance  of  '87.  The  ordinance  being 
there,  slavery  decreased  during  that  ten  years — the  ordinance 
not  being  in  the  other,  it  increased  from  a  few  to  ten  thou 
sand.  Can  any  body  doubt  the  reason  of  the  difference  ? 

I  think  all  these  facts  most  abundantly  prove  that  my  friend 
Judge  Douglas's  proposition,  that  the  ordinance  of  '87,  or  the 
national  restriction  of  slavery,  never  had  a  tendency  to  make 
a  free  State,  is  a  fallacy — a  proposition  without  the  shadow  or 
substance  of  truth  about  it. 

Douglas  sometimes  says  that  all  the  States  (and  it  is  part  of 
this  same  proposition  I  have  been  discussing)  that  have  be 
come  free,  have  become  so  upon  his  "  great  principle  ;"  that 
the  State  of  Illinois  itself  came  into  the  Union  as  a  slave 
State,  and  that  the  people,  upon  the  "  great  principle "  of 
popular  sovereignty,  have  since  made  it  a  free  State.  Allow 
me  but  a  little  while  to  state  to  you  what  facts  there  are  to 
justify  him  in  saying  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a 
slave  State. 

I  have  mentioned  to  you  that  there  were  a  few  old  French 
slaves  there.  They  numbered,  I  think,  one  or  two  hundred. 
Besides  that,  there  had  been  a  territorial  law  for  indenturing 
black  persons.  Under  that  law,  in  violation  of  the  ordinance 
of '87,  but  without  any  enforcement  of  the  ordinance  to  over 
throw  the  system,  there  had  been  a  small  number  of  slaves  in 
troduced  as  indentured  persons.  Owing  to  this  the  clause  for  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  was  slightly  modified.  Instead  of  run 
ning  like  yours,  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude, 
except  for  crime,  of  which  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con 
victed,  ehould  exist  in  the  State,  they  said  that  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude  should  thereafter  be  introduced,  and 
that  the  children  of  indentured  servants  should  be  born  free ; 
and  nothing  was  said  about  the  few  old  French  slaves.  Out 
of  this  fact,  that  the  clause  for  prohibiting  slavery  was  modified 
because  of  the  actual  presence  of  it,  Douglas  asserts  again  and 
again  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State.  How 
far  the  facts  sustain  the  conclusion  that  he  draws,  it  is  for  in 
telligent  and  impartial  men  to  decide.  I  leave  it  with  you 
with  these  remarks,  worthy  of  being  remembered,  that  that 
little  thing,  those  few  indentured  servants  being  there,  was  of 


302  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

itself  sufficient  to  modify  a  constitution  made  by  a  people  ar 
dently  desiring  to  have  a  free  constitution  ;  showing  the  power 
of  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  of  slavery  to  prevent 
any  people,  however  anxious  to  make  a  free  State,  from 
making  it  perfectly  so. 

I  have  been  detaining  you  longer  perhaps  than  I  ought 
to  do.  . 

I  am  in  some  doubt  whether  to  introduce  another  topic  upon 
which  I  could  talk  awhile.  [Cries  of"  Go  on,"  and  "  Give 
us  it."]  It  is  this,  then  :  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty,  as  a 
principle,  is  simply  this  :  If  one  man  chooses  to  make  a  slave 
of  another  man,  neither  that  man  or  anybody  else  has  a 
right  to  object.  Apply  it  to  a  government,  as  he  seeks  to 
apply  it,  and  it  is  this :  if  in  a  new  territory,  into  which  a 
few  people  are  beginning  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  making 
their  homes,  they  choose  to  either  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  or  to  establish  it  there,  however  one  or  the  other  may 
affect  the  persons  to  be  enslaved,  or  the  infinitely  greater  num 
ber  of  persons  who  are  afterward  to  inhabit  that  territory,  or 
the  other  members  of  the  family  of  communities,  of  which  they 
are  but  an  incipient  member,  or  the  general  head  of  the  family 
of  States  as  parent  of  all — however  their  action  may  affect 
one  or  the  other  of  these,  there  is  no  power  or  right  to  inter 
fere.  That  is  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  applied.  Now, 
I  think  that  there  is  a  real  popular  sovereignty  in  the  world. 
I  think  a  definition  of  popular  sovereignty,  in  the  abstract, 
would  be  about  this — that  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he 
pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things  which  exclu 
sively  concern  him.  Applied  in  government,  this  principle 
would  be,  that  a  general  government  shall  do  all  those  things 
which  pertain  to  it,  and  all  the  local  governments  shall  do  pre 
cisely  as  they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which  exclu 
sively  concern  them. 

Douglas  looks  upon  slavery  as  so  insignificant  that  the 
people  must  decide  that  question  for  themselves,  and  yet  they 
are  not  fit  to  decide  who  shall  be  their  governor,  judge  or 
secretary,  or  who  shall  be  any  of  their  officers.  These  are 
vast  national  matters,  in  his  estimation,  but  the  little  matter 
in  his  estimation  is  that  of  planting  slavery  there.  That  is 
purely  of  local  interest,  which  nobody  should  be  allowed  to 
say  a  word  about. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  303 

Labor  is  the  great  source  from  which  nearly  all,  if  not  all, 
human  comforts  and  necessities  are  drawn.  There  is  a  differ 
ence  of  opinion  about  the  elements  of  labor  in  society.  Some 
men  assume  that  there  is  a  necessary  connection  between  capi 
tal  and  labor,  and  that  connection  draws  within  it  the  whole 
of  the  labor  of  the  community.  They  assume  that  nobody 
works  unless  capital  excites  them  to  work.  They  begin  next 
to  consider  what  is  the  best  way.  They  say  there  are  but 
two  ways  ;  one  is  to  hire  men  and  to  allure  them  to  labor  by 
their  consent ;  the  other  is  to  buy  the  men  and  drive  them  to 
it,  and  that  is  slavery.  Having  assumed  that,  they  proceed 
to  discuss  the  question  of  whether  the  laborers  themselves  are 
better  off  in  the  condition  of  slaves  or  of  hired  laborers,  and 
they  usually  decide  that  they  are  better  off  in  the  condition  of 
slaves. 

In  the  first  place,  I  say  that  the  whole  thing  is  a  mistake. 
That  there  is  a  certain  relation  between  capital  and  labor,  I 
admit.  That  it  does  exist,  and  rightfully  exist,  I  think  is 
true.  That  men  who  are  industrious,  and  sober,  and  honest 
in  the  pursuit  of  their  own  interests,  should  after  a  while  ac 
cumulate  capital,  arid  after  that  should  be  allowed  to  enjoy  it  in 
peace,  and  also,  if  they  should  choose,  when  they  have  ac 
cumulated  it,  to  use  it  to  save  themselves  from  actual  labor 
and  hire  other  people  to  labor  for  them,  is  right.  In  doing  so 
they  do  not  wrong  the  man  they  employ,  for  they  find  men 
who  have  not  of  their  own  land  to  work  upon,  or  shops  to 
work  in,  and  who  are  benefited  by  working  for  others,  hired 
laborers,  receiving  their  capital  for  it.  Thus  a  few  men  that 
own  capital,  hire  a  few  others,  and  these  establish  the  relation 
of  capital  and  labor  rightfully.  A  relation  of  which  I  make 
no  complaint.  But  I  insist  that  that  relation  after  all  does 
not  embrace  more  than  one-eighth  of  the  labor  of  the  country. 

[The  speaker  proceeded  to  argue  that  the  hired  laborer, 
with  his  ability  to  become  an  employer,  must  have  every  pre 
cedence  over  him  who  labors  under  the  inducement  of  force. 
He  continued  :] 

I  have  taken  upon  myself  in  the  name  of  some  of  you  to 
say,  that  we  expect  upon  these  principles  to  ultimately  beat 
them.  In  order  to  do  so,  I  think  we  want  and  must  have  a 
national  policy  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  that  ac 
knowledges  and  deals  with  that  institution  as  being  wrong. 


304  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Whoever  desires  the  prevention  of  the  spread  of  slavery  and 
the  nationalization  of  that  institution,  yields  all,  when  he 
yields  to  any  policy  that  either  recognizes  slavery  as  being 
right,  or  as  being  an  indifferent  thing.  Nothing  will  make 
you  successful  but  setting  up  a  policy  which  shall  treat  the 
thing  as  being  wrong.  When  I  say  this,  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  this  general  government  is  charged  with  the  duty  of 
redressing  or  preventing  all  the  wrongs  in  the  world  ;  but  I  do 
think  that  it  is  charged  with  preventing  and  redressing  all 
wrongs  which  are  wrongs  to  itself.  This  government  is  ex 
pressly  charged  with  the  duty  of  providing  for  the  general 
welfare.  We  believe  that  the  spreading  out  and  perpetuity 
of  the  institution  of  slavery  impairs  the  general  welfare.  We 
believe — nay,  we  know,  that  that  is  the  only  thing  that  has 
ever  threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  itself.  The 
only  thing  which  has  ever  menaced  the  destruction  of  the 
government  under  which  we  live,  is  this  very  thing.  To  re 
press  this  thing,  we  think,  is  providing  for  the  general  welfare. 
Our  friends  in  Kentucky  differ  from  us.  We  need  not  make 
our  argument  for  them,  but  we  who  think  it  is  wrong  in  all 
its  relations,  or  in  some  of  them  at  least,  must  decide  as  to  our 
own  actions,  and  our  own  course,  upon  our  own  judgment. 

I  say  that  we  must  not  interfere  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  because  the  Constitution 
forbids  it,  and  the  general  welfare  does  not  require  us  to  do  so. 
We  must  not  withhold  an  efficient  fugitive  slave  law  because 
the  Constitution  requires  us,  as  I  understand  it,  not  to  with 
hold  such  a  law.  But  we  must  prevent  the  out-spreading  of 
the  institution,  because  neither  the  Constitution  nor  general 
welfare  requires  us  to  extend  it.  We  must  prevent  the  revival 
of  the  African  slave-trade,  and  the  enacting  by  Congress  of  a 
territorial  slave  code.  We  must  prevent  each  of  these 
things  being  done  by  either  congresses  or  courts.  The  people 
of  these  United  States  are  the  rightful  masters  of  both  con 
gresses  and  courts,  not  to  overthrow  the  Constitution,  but  to 
overthrow  the  men  who  pervert  the  Constitution. 

To  do  these  things  we  must  employ  instrumentalities.  We 
must  hold  conventions  ;  we  must  adopt  platforms,  if  we  con 
form  to  ordinary  custom  ;  we  must  nominate  candidates,  and 
we  must  carry  elections.  In  all  these  things,  I  think  that  we 
ought  to  keep  in  view  our  real  purpose,  and  in  none  do  any- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  305 

thing  that  stands  adverse  to  our  purpose.  If  we  shall  adopt  a 
platform  that  fails  to  recognize  or  express  our  purpose,  or  elect 
a  man  that  declares  himself  inimical  to  our  purpose,  we  not 
only  take  nothing  by  our  success,  but  we  tacitly  admit  that  we 
act  upon  no  other  principle  than  a  desire  to  have  "  the  loaves 
and  fishes,"  by  which,  in  the  end,  our  apparent  success  is 
really  an  injury  to  us. 

I  know  that  this  is  very  desirable  with  me,  as  with  every 
body  else,  that  all  the  elements  of  the  Opposition  shall  unite 
in  the  next  Presidential  election,  and  in  all  future  time.  lam 
anxious  that  that  should  be,  but  there  are  things  seriously  to 
be  considered  in  relation  to  that  matter.  If  the  terms  can  be 
arranged,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  Union.  But  suppose  we  shall 
take  up  some  man  and  put  him  upon  one  end  or  the  other  of 
the  ticket,  who  declares  himself  against  us  in  regard  to  the 
prevention  cf  the  spread  of  slavery — who  turns  up  his  nose  and 
says  he  is  tired  of  hearing  anything  more  about  it,  who  is  more 
against  us  than  against  the  enemy,  what  will  be  the  issue? 
Why,  he  will  get  no  slave  States  after  all — he  has  tried  that 
already  until  being  beat  is  the  rule  for  him.  If  we  nominate 
him  upon  that  ground,  he  will  not  carry  a  slave  State,  and  not 
only  so,  but  that  portion  of  our  men  who  are  highstrung  upon 
the  principle  we  really  fight  for,  will  not  go  for  him,  and  he 
won't  get  a  single  electoral  vote  anywhere,  except,  perhaps, 
in  the  State  of  Maryland.  There  is  no  use  in  saying  to  us  that 
we  are  stubborn  and  obstinate,  because  we  won't  do  some  such 
thing  as  this.  We  cannot  do  it.  We  cannot  get  our  men  to 
vote  it.  I  speak  by  the  card,  that  we  cannot  give  the  State 
of  Illinois  in  such  case  by  fifty  thousand.  'We  would  be  flatter 
down  than  the  l<  Negro  Democracy"  themselves  have  the  heart 
to  wish  to  see  us. 

After  saying  this  much,  let  me  say  a  little  on  the  other  side. 
There  are  plenty  of  men  in  the  slave  States  that  are  altogether 
good  enough  for  me  to  be  either  President  or  Vice-President, 
provided  they  will  profess  their  sympathy  with  our  purpose, 
and  will  place  themselves  on  the  ground  that  our  men,  upon 
principle,  can  vote  for  them.  There  are  scores  of  them,  good 
men  in  their  character  for  intelligence  and  talent  and  integrity. 
If  such  a  one  will  place  himself  upon  the  right  ground,  I  am 
for  his  occupying  one  place  upon  the  next  Republican  or  Op 
position  ticket.  I  will  heartily  go  for  him.  But,  unless  he 


306  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

does  so  place  himself,  I  think  it  a  matter  of  perfect  nonsense  to 
attempt  to  bring  about  a  union  upon  any  other  basis  ;  that  if 
a  union  be  made,  the  elements  will  scatter  so  that  there  can  be 
no  success  for  such  a  ticket,  nor  anything  like  success.  The 
good  old  maxims  of  the  Bible  are  applicable,  and  truly  appli 
cable,  to  human  affairs ;  and  in  this,  as  in  other  things,  we 
may  say  here,  that  he  who  is  not  for  us  is  against  us  ;  he  who 
gathereth  not  with  us  scattereth.  I  should  be  glad  to  have 
some  of  the  many  good,  and  able,  and  noble  men  of  the  South 
to  place  themselves  where  we  can  confer  upon  them  the  high 
honor  of  an  election  upon  one  or  the  other  end  of  our  ticket. 
It  would  do  my  soul  good  to  do  that  thing.  It  would  enable 
us  to  teach  them  that,  inasmuch  as  we  select  one  of  their  own 
number  to  carry  out  our  principles,  we  are  free  from  the  charge 
that  we  mean  more  than  we  say. 

But,  my  friends,  I  have  detained  you  much  longer  than  I 
expected  to  do.  I  believe  I  may  do  myself  the  compliment  to 
say  that  you  have  stayed  and  heard  me  with  great  patience, 
for  which  I  return  you  my  most  sincere  thanks. 


SPEECH   OF    MB.    LINCOLN, 

AT  THE  COOPER  INSTITUTE,  NEW- YORK,  Febi-uary  27,  1860. 

MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  NEW-YORK: 
The  facts  with  which  I  shall  deal  this  evening  are  mainly  old 
and  familiar ;  nor  is  there  anything  new  in  the  general  use  I 
shall  make  of  them.  If  there  shall  be  any  novelty,  it  will  be 
in  the  mode  of  presenting  the  facts,  and  the  inferences  and 
observations  following  that  presentation. 

In  his  speech,  last  autumn,  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  as  reported 
in  The  New-York  Times,  Senator  Douglas  said  : 

**  Our  fathers,  when  they  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live,  understood  this  question  just  as  well  as,  and  even 
better  than,  we  do  now." 

I  fully  endorse  this,  and  I  adopt  it  as  a  text  for  this  dis 
course.  I  so  adopt  it  because  it  furnishes  a  precise  and  an 
agreed  starting  point  for  a  discussion  between  Republicans  and 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  307 

that  wing  of  the  Democracy  headed  by  Senator  Douglas.  It 
simply  leaves  the  inquiry :  "  What  was  the  understanding 
those  fathers  had  of  the  question  mentioned1?" 

What  is  the  frame  of  government  under  which  we  live  ? 
The  answer  must  be:  "The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."  That  Constitution  consists  of  the  original,  framed  in 
1787  (and  under  which  the  present  government  first  went  into 
operation),  and  twelve  subsequently  framed  amendments,  the 
first  ten  of  which  were  framed  in  1789. 

Who  were  our  fathers  that  framed  the  Constitution  ?  I 
suppose  the  "  thirty-nine"  who  signed  the  original  instrument 
may  be  fairly  called  our  fathers  who  framed  that  part  of  the 
present  government.  It  is  almost  exactly  true  to  say  they 
framed  it,  and  it  is  altogether  true  to  say  they  fairly  repre 
sented  the  opinion  and  sentiment  of  the  whole  nation  at  that 
time.  Their  names,  being  familiar  to  nearly  all,  and  accessi 
ble  to  quite  all,  need  not  now  be  repeated. 

I  take  these  "  thirty-nine,"  for  the  present,  as  being 
il  our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we 
live." 

What  is  the  question  which,  according  to  the  text,  those 
fathers  understood  just  as  well,  and  even  better  than  we  do 
now  ? 

It  is  this  :  Does  the  proper  division  of  local  from  federal 
authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution,  forbid  our  federal 
government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  our  federal  terri 
tories  ? 

Upon  this,  Douglas  holds  the  affirmative,  and  Republicans 
the  negative.  This  affirmative  and  denial  form  an  issue  ;  and 
this  issue — this  question — is  precisely  what  the  text  declares 
our  fathers  understood  better  than  we. 

Let  us  now  inquire  whether  the  "  thirty-nine,"  or  any  of 
them,  ever  acted  upon  this  question  ;  and  if  they  did,  how 
they  acted  upon  it — how  they  expressed  that  better  under 
standing. 

In  1784 — three  years  before  the  Constitution — the  United 
States  then  owning  the  Northwestern  Territory,  and  no  other — 
the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  had  before  them  the  ques 
tion  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  that  territory  ;  and  four  of  the 
"  thirty-nine"  who  afterward  framed  the  Constitution  were  in 
that  Congress,  and  voted  on  that  question.  Of  these,  Roger 


308  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

Sherman,  Thomas  Miffliii,  and  Hugh  Williamson,  voted  for 
the  prohibition — thus  showing  that,  in  their  understanding,  no 
line  dividing  local  from  federal  authority,  nor  anything  else, 
properly  forbade  the  federal  government  to  control  as  to 
slavery  in  federal  territory.  The  other  of  the  four — James 
McHenry — voted  against  the  prohibition,  showing  that,  for 
some  cause,  he  thought  it  improper  to  vote  for  it. 

In  1787,  still  before  the  Constitution,  but  while  the  Con 
vention  was  in  session  framing  it,  and  while  the  northwestern 
territory  still  was  the  only  territory  owned  by  the  United 
States — the  same  question  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  terri 
tory  again  came  before  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  ; 
and  three  more  of  the  "  thirty-nine"  who  afterward  signed  the 
Constitution,  were  in  that  Congress,  and  voted  on  the  ques 
tion.  They  were  William  Blount,  William  Few,  and  Abra 
ham  Baldwin  ;  and  they  all  voted  for  the  prohibition — thus 
showing  that,  in  their  understanding,  no  line  dividing  local 
from  federal  authority,  nor  anything  else,  properly  forbids  the 
federal  government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  federal  terri 
tory.  This  time  the  prohibition  became  a  law,  being  part  of 
what  is  now  well  known  as  the  Ordinance  of  '87. 

The  question  of  federal  control  of  slavery  in  the  territories, 
seems  not  to  have  been  directly  before  the  Convention  which 
framed  the  original  Constitution  ;  and  hence  it  is  not  recorded 
that  the  "  thirty-nine"  or  any  of  them,  while  engaged  on  that 
instrument,  expressed  any  opinion  on  that  precise  question. 

In  1789,  by  the  first  Congress  which  sat  under  the  Consti 
tution,  an  act  was  passed  to  enforce  the  Ordinance  of  '87, 
including  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  northwestern  ter 
ritory.  The  bill  for  this  act  was  reported  by  one  of  the 
'  thirty-nine,"  Thomas  Fitzsimmons,  then  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  from  Pennsylvania.  It  went  through 
all  its  stages  without  a  word  of  opposition,  and  finally  passed 
both  branches  without  yeas  and  nays,  which  is  equivalent  to 
a  unanimous  passage.  In  this  Congress  there  were  sixteen  of 
the  "  thirty-nine"  fathers  who  framed  the  original  Constitu 
tion.  They  were  John  Langdon,  Nicholas  Gilman,  Wm.  S. 
Johnson,  Roger  Sherman,  Robert  Morris,  Thos.  Fitzsimmons, 
William  Few,  Abraham  Baldwin,  Rufus  King,  William  Pat 
terson,  George  Clymer,  Richard  Bassett,  George  Reed,  Pierce 
Butler,  Daniel  Carroll,  James  Madison.. 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  309 

This  shows  that,  in  their  understanding,  no  line  dividing  lo 
cal  from  federal  authority,  nor  anything  in  the  Constitution, 
properly  forbade  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  federal 
territory  ;  else  both  their  fidelity  to  correct  principle,  and  their 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  would  have  constrained  them 
to  oppose  the  prohibition. 

Again,  George  Washington,  another  of  the  "thirty-nine," 
was  then  President  of  the  United  States,  and,  as  such,  ap 
proved  and  signed  the  bill,  thus  completing  its  validity  as  a 
law,  and  thus  shoeing  that,  in  his  understanding,  no  line  divi 
ding  local  from  federal  authority,  nor  anything  in  the  Consti 
tution,  forbade  the  federal  government  to  control  as  to 
slavery  in  federal  territory. 

No  great  while  after  the  adoption  of  the  original  Constitu 
tion,  North  Carolina  ceded  to  the  federal  government  the 
country  now  constituting  the  State  of  Tennessee  ;  and  a  few- 
years  later  Georgia  ceded  that  which  now  constitutes  the 
States  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama.  In  both  deeds  of  cession 
it  was  made  a  condition  by  the  ceding  States  that  the  feder 
al  government  should  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the  ceded  coun 
try.  Besides  this,  slavery  was  then  actually  in  the  ceded 
country.  Under  these  circumstances,  Congress,  on  taking 
charge  of  these  countries,  did  not  absolutely  prohibit  slavery 
within  them.  But  they  did  not  interfere  with  it — take  con 
trol  of  it — even  there,  to  a  certain  extent.  In  1798,  Con 
gress  organized  the  territory  of  Mississippi.  In  the  act  of  or 
ganization  they  prohibited  the  bringing  of  slaves  into  the  ter 
ritory,  from  any  place  without  the  United  States,  by  fine,  and 
giving  freedom  to  slaves  so  brought.  This  act  passed  both 
branches  of  Congress  without  yeas  and  nays.  In  that  Con 
gress  were  three  of  the%"  thirty-nine"  who  framed  the  original 
Constitution.  They  were  John  Langdon,  George  Read,  and 
Abraham  Baldwin.  They  all,  probably,  voted  for  it.  Cer 
tainly  they  would  have  placed  their  opposition  to  it  upon  rec 
ord,  if,  in  their  understanding,  any  line  dividing  local  from 
federal  authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution,  properly 
forbade  the  federal  government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  fed 
eral  territory. 

In  1803,  the  federal  government  purchased  the  Louisiana 
country.  Our  former  territorial  acquisitions  came  from  cer 
tain  of  our  own  States ;  but  this  Louisiana  country  was  ac- 


310  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

quired  from  a  foreign  nation.  In  1804,  Congress  gave  a 
territorial  organization  to  that  part  of  it  which  now  consti 
tutes  the  State  *f  Louisiana.  New-Orleans,  lying  within  that 
part,  was  an  old  and  comparatively  large  city.  There  were 
other  considerable  towns  and  settlements,  and  slavery  was 
extensively  and  thoroughly  intermingled  with  the  people. 
Congress  did  not,  in  the  territorial  act,  prohibit  slavery  ; 
but  they  did  interfere  Avith  it — take  control  of  it — in  a  more 
marked  and  extensive  way  than  they  did  in  the  case  of  Missis 
sippi.  The  substance  of  the  provision  therein  made,  in  rela 
tion  to  slaves,  was : 

First.  That  no  slaves  should  be  imported  into  the  territory 
from  foreign  parts. 

Second.  That  no  slave  should  be  carried  into  it  who  had 
been  imported  into  the  United  States  since  the  first  day  of  May, 
1798. 

Third.  That  no  slave  should  be  carried  into  it,  except  by 
the  owner,  and  for  his  own  use  as  a  settler  ;  the  penalty  in  all 
the  cases  being  a  fine  upon  the  violator  of  the  law,  and  free 
dom  to  the  slave. 

This  act  also  was  passed  without  yeas  and  nays.  In  the 
Congress  which  passed  it,  there  were  two  of  the  "  thirty- 
nine."  They  were  Abraham  Baldwin  and  Jonathan  Dayton. 
As  stated  in  the  case  of  Mississippi,  it  is  probable  they  both 
voted  for  it.  They  would  not  have  allowed  it  to  pass  without 
recording  their  opposition  to  it,  if,  in  their  understanding,  it 
violated  either  the  line  proper  dividing  local  from  federal  au 
thority  or  any  provision  of  the  Constitution. 

In  18I9-'20,  came  and  passed  the  Missouri  question.  Many 
votes  were  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays,  in  both  branches  of  Con 
gress,  upon  the  various  phases  of  the  general  question.  Two 
of  the  "  thirty-nine" — Rufus  King  and  Charles  Pinckney — 
were  members  of  that  Congress.  Mr.  King  steadily  voted  for 
slavery  prohibition  and  against  all  compromises,  while  Mr. 
Pinckney  as  steadily  voted  against  slavery  prohibition  and 
against  all  compromises.  By  this  Mr.  King  showed  that,  in 
his  understanding,  no  line  dividing  local  from  federal  author 
ity,  nor  anything  in  the  Constitution,  was  violated  by  Congress 
prohibiting  slavery  in  federal  territory  ;  while  Mr.  Pinckney, 
by  his  votes,  showed  that  in  his  understanding  there  was  some 
sufficient  reason  for  opposing  such  prohibition  in  that  case. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  311 

The  cases  I  have  mentioned  are  the  only  acts  of  the  "  thirty- 
nine,"  or  of  any  of  them,  upon  the  direct  issue,  which  I  have 
been  able  to  discover. 

To  enumerate  the  persons  who  thus  acted  as  being  four  in 
1784,  three  in  1787,  seventeen  in  1789,  three  in  1798,  two 
in  1804,  and  two  in  1819-'20 — there  would  be  thirty-one  of 
them.  But  this  would  be  counting  John  Langdon,  Roger 
Sherman,  William  Few,  Rufus  King,  and  George  Read,  each 
twice,  and  Abraham  Baldwin  four  times.  The  true  number 
of  those  of  the  "thirty-nine"  whom  I  have  shown  to  have 
acted  upon  the  question,  which,  by  the  text  they  understood 
better  than  we,  is  twenty-three,  leaving  sixteen  not  shown  to 
have  acted  npon  it  in  any  way. 

Here,  then,  we  have  twenty-three  out  of  our  "  thirty-nine" 
fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,  who 
have,  upon  their  official  responsibility  and  their  corporal  oaths, 
acted  upon  the  very  question  which  the  text  affirms  they 
**  understood  just  as  well,  and  even  better  than  we  do  now  ;" 
and  twenty-one  of  them — a  clear  majority  of  the  whole 
"  thirty-nine" — so  acting  upon  it  as  to  make  them  guilty  of 
gross  political  impropriety,  and  wilful  perjury,  if,  in  their 
understanding,  any  proper  division  between  local  and  federal 
authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution  they  had  made 
themselves  and  sworn  to  support,  forbade  the  federal  govern 
ment  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  federal  territories.  Thus 
the  twenty  one  acted  ;  and  as  actions  speak  louder  than  words, 
so  actions  under  such  responsibility  speak  still  louder. 

Two  of  the  twenty-three  voted  against  Congressional  pro 
hibition  of  slavery  in  the  federal  territories,  in  the  instances  in 
which  they  acted  upon  the  question.  But  for  what  reasons 
they  so  voted  is  not  known.  They  may  have  done  so  be 
cause  they  thought  a  proper  division  of  local  from  federal 
authority,  or  some  provision  or  principle  of  the  Constitution, 
stood  in  the  way;  or  they  may,  without  any  such  question, 
have  voted  against  the  prohibition  on  what  appeared  to  them 
to  be  sufficient  grounds  of  expediency.  No  one  who  has 
sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  can  conscientiously  vote 
for  what  he  understands  to  be  an  constitutional  measure, 
however  expedient  he  may  think  it  ;  but  one  may  and  ought 
to  vote  against  a  measure  which  he  deems  unconstitutional,  if, 
at  the  same  time,  he  deems  it  inexpedient.  It,  there- 


314  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


n.ation  become  impudently  absurd  when  coupled  with  the 
o'her  affirmation,  from  the  same  month,  that  those  who  did 
the  two  things  alleged  to  be  inconsistent  understood  whether 
they  really  were  inconsistent  better  than  we — better  than  he 
who  affirms  that  they  are  inconsistent  ? 

It  is  surely  safe  to  assume  that  the  "  thirty-nine"  framers  of 
the  original  Constitution,  and  the  seventy-six  members  of  the 
Congress,  which  framed  the  amendments  thereto,  taken  to 
gether,  do  certainly  include  those  who  may  be  fairly  called 
'•  our  fathers  who  framed  the  governments  under  which  we 
live."  And  so  assuming,  I  defy  any  man  to  show  that  any 
one  of  them  ever,  in  his  whole  life,  declared  that,  in  his  un 
derstanding,  any  proper  division  of  local  from  federal  author 
ity,  or 'any  part  of  the  Constitution,  forbade  the  federal  gov 
ernment  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  federal  territories. 
I  go  a  step  further.  I  defy  any  one  to  show  that  any  living 
man  in  the  whole  world  ever  did,  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century  (and  I  might  almost  say  prior  to  the  beginning 
of  the  last  half  of  the  present  century),  declare  that,  in  his 
understanding,  any  proper  division  of  local  from  federal  author 
ity,  or  any  part  of  the.  Constitution,  forbade  the  federal  gor- 
ernment  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  federal  territories.  To 
those  who  now  so  declare,  I  give,  not  only  "  our  fathers  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,"  but  with  them 
all  other  living  men  within  the  century  in  which  it  was  framed, 
among  whom  to  search,  and  they  shall  not  be  able  to  find  the 
evidence  of  a  single  man  agreeing  with  them. 

Now,  and  here,  let  me  guard  a  little  against  being  misun 
derstood.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  we  are  bound  to  follow  im 
plicitly  in  whatever  our  fathers  did.  To  do  so,  would  be  to 
discard  all  the  lights  of  current  experience — to  reject  all  prog 
ress — all  improvement  What  I  do  say  is,  that  if  we  would 
supplant  the  opinions  and  policy  of  our  fathers  in  any  case,  we 
should  do  so  upon  evidence  so  conclusive,  and  argument  so 
clear,  that  even  their  great  authority,  fairly  considered  and 
weighed,  cannot  stand  ;  and  most  surely  not  in  a  case  whereof 
we  ourselves  declare  they  understood  the  question  better  than 
we. 

If  any  man,  at  this  day,  sincerely  believes  that  a  proper 
division  of  local  from  federal  authority,  or  any  part  of  the 
Constitution,  forbids  the  federal  government  to  control  as  to 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  315 

blavery  in  the  federal  territories,  he  is  right  to  nay  so,  and  to 
enforce  his  position  by  all  truthful  evidence  and  fair  argument 
which  he  can.  But  he  has  no  right  to  mislead  others,  who 
have  less  access  to  history  and  less  leisure  to  study  it,  into 
the  false  belief  that  "  our  fathers  who  framed  the  government 
under  which  we  live,"  were  of  the  same  opinion — thus  substi 
tuting  falsehood  and  deception  for  truthful  evidence  and  fair 
argument.  If  any  man  at  this  day  sincerely  believes  "our 
fathers,  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,'' 
used  and  applied  principles,  in  other  cases,  which  ought  to 
have  led  them  to  understand  that  a  proper  division  of  local 
from  federal  authority  or  some  part  of  the  Constitution,  forbids 
the  federal  government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  federal 
territories,  he  is  right  to  say  so.  But  he  should,  at  the  same 
time,  brave  the  responsibility  of  declaring  that,  in  his  opinion, 
he  understands  their  principles  better  than  they  did  them 
selves  ;  and  especially  should  he  not  shirk  that  responsibility 
by  asserting  that  they  "  understood  the  question  just  as  well, 
and  even  better,  than  we  do  now." 

But  enough.  Let  all  who  believe  that  "  our  fathers,  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,  understood  this 
question  just  as  well,  and  even  better  than  we  do  now,"  speak 
as  they  spoke,  and  act  as  they  acted  upon  it.  This  is  all  Ke- 
publicans  ask — all  Republicans  desire — in  relation  to  slavery. 
As  those  fathers  marked  it,  so  let  it  be  again  marked,  as  an 
evil  not  to  be  extended,  but  to  be  tolerated  and  protected  only 
because  of,  and  so  far  as  its  actual  presence  among  us  makes 
that  toleration  and  protection  a  necessity.  Let  all  the  guaran 
tees  those  fathers  gave  it,  be,  not  grudgingly,  but  fully  and 
fairly  maintained.  For  this  .Republicans  contend,  and  with 
this,  so  far  as  I  know  or  believe,  they  will  be  content. 

And  now,  if  they  would  listen — as  I  suppose  they  will  not 
— I  would  address  a  few  words  to  the  Southern  people. 

I  would  say  to  them  :  You  consider  yourselves  a  reasonable 
and  a  just  people  ;  and  I  consider  that  in  the  general  qualities 
of  reason  and  justice  you  are  not  interior  to  any  other  people. 
Still,  when  you  speak  of  us  Ilepublicans,  you  do  so  only  to  de 
nounce  us  as  reptiles,  or,  at  the  best,  as  no  better  than  out-1 
laws.  You  will  grant  a  hearing  to  pirates  or  murderers,  but 
nothing  like  it  to  "Black  Republicans."  In  all  your  conten 
tions  with  one  another,  each  of  you  deems  an  unconditional 


316  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 


condemnation  of  "  Black  Republicanism"  as  Ihe  first  thing  to 
be  attended  to.  Indeed,  such  condemnation  of  us  seems  to  be 
an  indispensable  pre-requieite — license,  so  to  speak — among 
you  to  be  admitted  or  permitted  to  speak  at  all. 

Now,  can  you,  or  not,  be  prevailed  upon  to  pause  and  to 
consider  whether  this  is  quite  just  to  us,  or  even  to  your 
selves  ? 

Bring  forward  your  charges  and  specifications,  and  then  be 
patient  long  enough  to  hear  us  deny  or  justify. 

You  say  we  are  sectional.  We  deny  it.  That  makes  an 
issue  ;  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  you.  You  produce 
your  proof;  and  what  is  it?  Why,  that  our  party  has  no 
existence  in  your  section — gets  no  votes  in  your  section.  The 
fact  is  substantially  true  ;  but  does  it  prove  the  issue?  If  it 
does,  then  in  case  we  should,  without  change  of  principle,  be 
gin  to  get  votes  in  your  section,  we  should  thereby  cease  to  be 
sectional.  You  cannot  escape  this  conclusion  ;  and  yet,  are 
you  willing  to  abide  by  it  ?  If  you  are,  you  will  probably 
soon  find  that  we  have  ceased  to  be  sectional,  for  we  shall  get 
votes  in  your  section  this  very  year.  You  will  then  begin  to 
discover,  as  the  truth  plainly  is,  that  your  proof  does  not  touch 
the  issue.  The  fact  that  we  get  no  votes  in  your  section  is  a 
fact  of  your  making,  and  not  of  ours.  And  if  there  be  fault 
in  that  fact,  that  fault  is  primarily  yours,  and  remains  so  until 
you  show  that  we  repel  you  by  some  wrong  principle  or  prac 
tice.  If  we  do  repel  you  by  any  wrong  principle  or  practice, 
the  fault  is  ours ;  but  this  brings  you  to  where  you  ought  to 
have  .started — to  the  discussion  of  the  right  or  wrong  of  our 
principle.  If  our  principle,  put  in  practice,  would  wrong 
your  section  for  the  benefit  of  ours,  or  for  a-ny  other  object, 
then  our  principle,  and  we  with  it,  are  sectional,  and  are  justly 
opposed  and  denounced  as  such.  Meet  us,  then,  on  the  ques 
tion  of  whether  our  principle,  put  in  practice,  would  wrong 
your  section  ;  and  so  meet  it  as  if  it  were  possible  that  some 
thing  may  be  said  on  our  side.  Do  you  accept  the  challenge  ? 
No  ?  Then  you  really  believe  that  the  principle  which  our 
fathers  who  framed  the  government  .under  which,  we  live 
thought  so  clearly  right  as  to  adopt  it,  and  endorse  it  again  and 
again,  upon  their  official  oaths,  is,  in  fact  so  clearly  wrong  as 
to  demand  your  condemnation  without  a  moment's  con 
sideration. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  317 

Some  of  you  delight  to  flaunt  in  our  faces  the  warning 
against  sectional  parties  given  by  Washington  in  his  Farewell 
Address.  Less  than  eight  years  before  Washington  gave  that 
warning,  he  had,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  approved 
and  signed  an  act  of  Congress  enforcing  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  northwestern  territory,  which  act  embodied  the 
policy  of  the  government  upon  that  subject,  up  to  and  at  the 
very  moment  he  penned  that  warning  ;  and  about  one  year 
after  he  penned  it  he  wrote  Lafayette  that  he  considered  that 
prohibition  a  wise  measure,  expressing  in  the  same  connection 
his  hope  that  we  should  some  time  have  a  confederacy  of  free 
States. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  and  seeing  that  sectionalism  has  since 
arisen  upon  this  same  subject,  is  that  warning  a  weapon  in 
your  hands  against  us,  or  in  our  hands  against  you  ?  Could 
Washington  himself  speak,  would  he  cast  the  blame  of  that 
sectionalism  upon  us,  who  sustain  his  policy,  or  upon  you  who 
repudiate  it "?  We  respect  that  warning  of  Washington,  and 
we  commend  it  to  you,  together  with  his  example  pointing  to 
the  right  application  of  it. 

But  you  say  you  are  conservative — eminently  conservative 
— while  we  are  revolutionary,  destructive,  or  something  of  the 
sort.  What  is  conservatism  I  Is  it  not  adherence  to  the  old 
and  tried,  against  the  new  and  untried  ?  We  stick  to,  con 
tend  for,  the  identical  old  policy  on  the  point  in  controversy 
which  was  adopted  by  our  fathers  who  framed  the  govern 
ment  under  which  we  live  ;  while  you  with  one  accord  reject, 
and  scout,  and  spit  upon  that  old  policy,  and  insist  upon  sub 
stituting  something  new.  True,  you  disagree  among  your 
selves  as  to  what  that  substitute  shall  be.  You  have  con 
siderable  variety  of  new  propositions  and  plans,  but  you  are. 
unanimous  in  rejecting  and  denouncing  the  old  policy  of  the 
fathers.  Some  of  you  are  for  reviving  the  foreign  slave-trade ; 
some  for  a  Congressional  slave-code  for  the  territories  ;  some 
for  Congress  forbidding  the  territories  to  prohibit  slavery 
within  their  limits  ;  some  for  maintaining  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories  through  the  judiciary  ;  some  for  th'e  "  gurreat  pur- 
rinciple"  that  "  if  one  man  would  enslave  another,  no  third 
man  should  object,"  fantastically  called  "  popular  sovereignty  ;" 
but  never  a  man  among  you  in  favor  of  federal  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  federal  territories,  according  to  the  practice  of  our 


318  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

fathers  who  framed  the  goyernment  under  which  we  live.  Not 
one  of  your  various  plans  can  show  a  precedent  or  an  advocate 
in  the  century  within  which  our  government  originated.  Con 
sider,  then,  whether  your  claim  of  conservatism  for  your 
selves,  and  your  charge  of  destructiveness  against  us,  are 
based  on  the  most  clear  and  stable  foundations. 

Again,  you  say  we  have  made  the  slavery  question  more 
prominent  than  it  formerly  was.  We  deny  it.  We  admit 
that  it  is  more  prominent,  but  we  deny  that  we  made  it  so. 
It  was  not  we,  but  you,  who  discarded  the  old  policy  of  the 
fathers.  We  resisted,  and  still  resist,  your  innovation  ;  and 
thence  comes  the  greater  prominence  of  the  question.  Would 
you  have  that  question  reduced  to  its  former  proportions  ? 
Go  back  to  that  old  policy.  What  has  been  will  be  again, 
under  the  same  conditions.  If  you  would  have  the  peace  of 
the  old  times,  re-adopt  the  precepts  and  policy  of  the  old 
times. 

You  charge  that  we  stir  up  insurrections  among  your  slaves. 
We  deny  it ;  and  what  is  your  proof  ?  Harper's  Ferry ! 
John  Brown  ! !  John  Brown  was  no  [Republican'  ;  and  you 
have  failed  to  implicate  a  single  Republican  in  his  Harper's 
Ferry  enterprise.  If  any  member  of  our  party  is  guilty  in 
that  matter,  you  know  it  or  you  do  not  know  it.  If  you  do 
know  it,  you  ore  inexcusable  to  not  designate  the  man,  and 
prove  the  fact.  If  you  do  not  know  it,  you  are  inexcusable 
to  assert  it,  and  especially  to  persist  in  the  assertion  after  you 
have  tried  and  failed  to  make  the  proof.  You  need  not  be 
told  that  persisting  in  a  charge  which  one  does  not  know  to 
be  true,  is  simply  malicious  slander. 

Some  of  you  admit  that  no  Republican  designedly  aided  or 
encouraged  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair  ;  but  still  insist  that  our 
doctrines  and  declarations  necessarily  lead  to  such  results. 
We  do  not  believe  it.  We  know  we  hold  to  no  doctrine,  and 
make  no  declarations,  which  were  not  held  to  and  made  by 
our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live. 
You  never  dealt  fairly  by  us  in  this  affair.  When  it  oc 
curred,  some  important  State  elections  were  near  at  hand,  and 
you  were  in  evident  glee  with  the  belief  that,  by  charging  the 
blame  upon  us,  you  could  get  an  advantage  of  us  in  those 
elections.  The  elections  came,  and  your  expectations  were 
not  quite  fulfilled.  Every  Republican  man  knew  that,  as  to 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  319 


himself  at  least,  your  charge  was  a  slander,  and  he  was  not 
much  inclined  by  it  to  cast  his  vote  in  your  favor.  Republi 
can  doctrines  and  declarations  are  accompanied  with  a  con 
tinual  protest  against  any  interference  whatever  with  your 
slaves,  or  with  you  about  your  slaves.  Surely,  this  does  not 
encourage  them  to  revolt.  True,  we  do,  in  common  with  our 
fathers,  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,  de 
clare  our  belief  that  slavery  is  wrong ;  but  the  slaves  do  not 
hear  us  declare  even  this.  For  anything  we  say  or  do,  the 
slaves  wonld  scarcely  know  there  is  a  Republican  party.  I 
believe  they  would  not,  in  fact,  generally  know  it  but  for 
your  misrepresentations  of  us,  in  their  hearing.  In  your 
political  contests  among  yourselves,  each  faction  charges  the 
other  with  sympathy  with  black  republicanism  ;  and  then,  to 
give  point  to  the  charge,  defines  black  republicanism  to  simply 
be  insurrection,  blood  and  thunder  among  the  slaves. 

Slave  insurrections  are  no  more  common  now  than  they 
were  before  the  Republican  party  was  organized.  What  in 
duced  the  Southampton  insurrection,  twenty-eight  years  ago, 
in  which,  at  least,  three  times  as  many  lives  were  lost  as  at 
Harper's  Ferry  *?  You  can  scarcely  stretch  your  very  elastic 
fancy  to  the  conclusion  that  Southampton  was  got  up  by  black 
republicanism.  In  the  present  state  of  things  in  the  United 
States,  I  do  not  think  a  general,  ar  even  a  very  extensive 
slave  insurrection,  is  possible.  The  indispensable  concert  of 
action  cannot  be  attained.  The  slaves  have  no  means  of 
rapid  communication  ;  nor  can  incendiary  free  men,  black  or 
white,  supply  it.  The  explosive  materials  are  everywhere  in 
parcels ;  but  there  neither  are,  nor  can  be  supplied,  the  indis 
pensable  connecting  trains. 

Much  is  said  by  Southern  people  about  the  affection  of 
slaves  for  their  masters  and  mistresses ;  and  a  part  of  it,  at 
least,  is  true.  A  plot  for  an  uprising  could  scarcely  be  de 
vised  and  communicated  to  twenty  individuals  before  some 
one  of  them,  to  save  the  life  of  a  favorite  master  or  mistress, 
would  divulge  it.  This  is  the  rule  ;  and  the  slave  revolution 
in  Hayti  was  not  an  exception  to  it,  but  a  case  occurring 
under  peculiar  circumstances.  The  gunpowder-plot  of  British 
history,  though  not  connected  with  slaves,  was  more  in  point. 
In  that  case,  only  about  twenty  were  admitted  to  the  secret ; 
and  yet  one  of  them,  in  his  anxiety  to  save  a  friend,  betrayed 


320  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

the  plot  to  that  friend,  and,  by  consequence,  averted  the 
calamity.  Occasional  poisonings  from  the  kitchen,  and  open 
or  stealthy  assassinations  in  the  field,  and  local  revolts  ex 
tending  to  a  score  or  so,  will  continue  to  occur  as  the  natural 
iv.-iilts  of  slavery;  but  no  general  insurrection  of  slaves,  as  I 
think,  can  happen  in  this  country  for  a  long  time.  Whoever 
much  fears,  or  much  hopes,  for  such  an  event,  will  be  alike 
disappointed. 

In  the  language  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  uttered  many  years  ago, 
"It  is  still  in  our  power  to  direct  the  process  of  emancipa 
tion  and  deportation,  peaceably,  and  in  such  slow  degrees,  as 
that  the  evil  will  wear  off  insensibly  ;  and  their  places  be,  pan 
passu,  tilled  up  by  free  white  laborers.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  left  to  force  itself  on,  human  nature  must  shudder  at  the 
prospect  held  up." 

Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  mean  to  say,  nor  dp  I,  that  the  power 
of  emancipation  is  in  the  federal  government.  lie  spoke  of 
Virginia  ;  and,  as  to  the  power  of  emancipation,  I  speak  of 
the  slaveholding  States  only. 

The  federal  government,  however,  as  we  insist,  has  the 
power  of  restraining  the  extension  of  the  institution — the 
power  to  insure  that  a  slave  insurrection  shall  never  occur  on 
any  American  soil  which  is  now  free  from  slavery. 

John  Brown's  effort  was  peculiar.  It  was  not  a  slave  in 
surrection.  It  was  an  attempt  by  white  men  to  get  up  a 
revolt  among  slaves,  in  which  the  slaves  refused  to  participate. 
In  fact,  it  was  so  absurd  that  the  slaves,  with  all  their  ig 
norance,  saw  plainly  enough  it  could  not  succeed.  That 
affair,  in  its  philosophy,  corresponds  with  the  many  attempts, 
related  in  history,  at  the  assassination  of  kings  and  emperors. 
An  enthusiast  broods  over  the  oppression  of  a  people  till  he 
fancies  himself  commissioned  by  Heaven  to  liberate  them. 
He  ventures  the  attempt,  which  ends  in  little  else  than  in  his 
own  execution.  Orsini's  attempt  on  Louis  Napoleon,  and 
John  Brown's  attempt  at  Harper's  Ferry,  were,  in  their  phi 
losophy,  precisely  the  same.  The  eagerness  to  cast  blame  on 
old  England  in  the  one  case,  and  on  New  England  in  the 
other,  does  not  disprove  the  sameness  of  the  two  things. 

And  how  much  would  it  avail  you,  if  you  could,  by 
the  use  of  John  Brown,  Helper's  book,  and  the  like,  break  up 
the  Republican  organization  ?  Human  action  can  be  modified 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  321 

to  some  extent,  but  human  nature  cannot  be  changed.  There 
is  a  judgment  and  a  feeling  against  slavery  in  this  nation, 
which  cast  at  least  a  million  and  a  half  of  votes.  You  cannot 
destroy  that  judgment  and  feeling — that  sentiment — by  break 
ing  up  the  political  organization  which  rallies  around  it.  You 
can  scarcely  scatter  and  disperse  an  army  which  has  been 
formed  into  order  in  the  face  of  your  heaviest  fire,  but  if  you 
could,  how  much  would  you  gain  by  forcing  the  sentiment 
which  created  it  out  of  the  peaceful  channel  of  the  ballot- 
box,  into  some  other  channel?  What  would  that  other  chan 
nel  probably  be  1  Would  the  number  of  John  Browns  be 
lessened  or  enlarged  by  the  operation  ? 

But  you  will  break  up  the  Union  rather  than  submit  to  a 
denial  of  your  constitutional  rights. 

That  has  a  somewhat  reckless  sound ;  but  it  would  be  pal 
liated,  if  not  fully  justified,  were  we  proposing,  by  the  mere 
force  of  numbers,  to  deprive  you  of  some  right,  plainly  written 
down  in  the  Constitution.  But  we  are  proposing  no  such 
thing. 

When  you  make  these  declarations,  you  have  a  specific  and 
well-understood  allusion  to  an  assumed  constitutional  right 
of  yours  to  take  slaves  into  the  federal  territories,  and  to  hold 
them  there  as  property.  But  no  such  right  is  specifically 
written  in  the  Constitution.  That  instrument  is  literally 
silent  about  any  such  right.  We,  on  the  contrary,  4eny  that 
such  a  right  has  any  existence  in  the  Constitution,  even  by 
implication. 

Your  purpose,  then,  plainly  stated,  is,  that  you  will  destroy 
the  government,  unless  you  be  allowed  to  construe  and  en 
force  the  Constitution  as  you  please,  on  all  points  in  dispute 
between  you  and  us.  You  will  rule  or  ruin  in  all  events. 

This,  plainly  stated,  is  your  language  to  us.  Perhaps  you 
will  say  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  the  disputed  constitu 
tional  question  in  your  favor.  Not  quite  so.  But  waiving 
the  lawyer's  distinction  between  dictum  and  decision,  the 
courts  have  decided  the  question  for  you  in  a  sort  of  way. 
The  courts  have  substantially  said,  it  is  your  constitutional 
right  to  take  slaves  into  the  federal  territories,  and  to  hold 
them  there  as  property. 

When  I  say  the  decision  was  made  in  a  sort  of  way,  I  mean 
it  was  made  in  a  divided  court  by  a  bare  majority  of  the 

14* 


322  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Judges,  and  they  not  quite  agreeing  with  one  another  in  the 
reasons  for  making  it ;  that  it  is  so  made  as  that  its  avowed 
supporters  disagree  with  one  another  about  its  meaning,  and 
that  it  was  mainly  based  upon  a  mistaken  statement  of  fact — 
the  statement  in  the  opinion  that  "  the  right  of  property  in  a 
slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution." 

An  inspection  of  the  Constitution  will  show  that  the  right 
of  property  in  a  slave  is  not  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed 
in  it.  Bear  in  mind  the  Judges  do  not  pledge  their  judicial 
opinion  that  such  right  is  impliedly  affirmed  in  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  but  they  pledge  their  \eracity  that  it  is  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed  there — "  distinctly"  that  is,  not  mingled 
with  anything  else — "  expressly"  that  is,  in  words  meaning 
just  that,  without  the  aid  of  any  inference,  and  susceptible  of 
no  other  meaning. 

If  they  had  only  pledged  their  judicial  opinion  that  such 
right  is  affirmed  in  the  instrument  by  implication,  it  would  be 
open  to  others  to  show  that  neither  the  word  "  slave"  nor 
';  slavery"  is  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution,  nor  the  word 
"  property"  even,  in  any  connection  with  language  alluding 
to  the  things  slave,  or  slavery,  and  that  wherever  in  that  in 
strument  the  slave  is  alluded  to,  he  is  called  a  "  person  ;"  and 
wherever  his  master's  legal  right  in  relation  to  him  is  alluded 
to,  it  is  spoken  of  as  "  service  or  labor  due,"  as  a  "  debt"  pay 
able  in  service  or  labors  Also,  it  would  be  open  to  show,  by 
contemporaneous  history,  that  this  mode  of  alluding  to  slaves 
and  slavery,  instead  of  speaking  of  them,  was  employed  on 
purpose  to  exclude  from  the  Constitution  the  idea  that  there 
could  be  property  in  man. 

To  show  all  this  is  easy  and  certain. 

"When  this  obvious  mistake  of  the  Judges  shall  be  brought 
to  their  notice,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  they  will 
withdraw  the  mistaken  statement,  and  reconsider  the  conclu 
sion  based  upon  it  ? 

And  then  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  "  our  fathers,  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live" — the  men  who 
made  the  Constitution — decided  this  same  constitutional  ques 
tion  in  our  favor,  long  ago — decided  it  without  a  division 
among  themselves,  when  making  the  decision  ;  without  divis 
ion  among  themselves  about  the  meaning  of  it  after  it  was 
made,  and  so  far  as  any  evidence  is  left,  without  basing  it 
uptm  any  mistaken  statement  of  facts. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  323 

Under  all  these  circumstances,  do  you  really  feel  yourselves 
justified  to  break  up  this  government,  unless  such  a  court  de 
cision  as  yours  is  shall  be  at  once  submitted  to  as  a  conclusive 
arid  final  rule  of  political  action  ? 

But  you  will  not  abide  the  election  of  a  Republican  Presi 
dent.  In  that  supposed  event,  you  say,  you  will  destroy  the 
Union  ;  and  then,  you  say,  the  great  crime  of  having  de 
stroyed  it  will  be  upon  us ! 

That  is  cool.  A  highwayman  holds  a  pistol  to  my  ear,  and 
mutters  through  his  teeth,  k'  Stand  and  deliver,  or  I  shall  kill 
you,  and  then  you  will  be  a  murderer !" 

To  be  sure,  what  the  robber  demanded  of  me — my  money 
— was  my  own  ;  and  I  had  a  clear  right  to  keep  it  ;  but  it 
was  no  more  my  own  than  my  vote  is  my  own  ;  and  the  threat 
of  death  to  me,  to  extort  my  money,  and  the  threat  of  de 
struction  to  the  Union,  to  extort  my  vote,  can  scarcely  be  dis 
tinguished  in  principle. 

A  few  words  now  to  Republicans.  It  is  exceedingly  de 
sirable  that  all  parts  of  this  great  confederacy  shall  be  at  peace, 
and  in  harmony,  one  with  another.  Let  us  Republicans  do 
our  part  to  have  it  so.  Even  though  much  provoked,  let  us 
do  nothing  through  passion  and  ill  temper.  Even  though  the 
Southern  people  will  not  so  much  as  listen  to  us,  let  us  calmly 
consider  their  demands,  and  yield  to  them  if,  in  our  deliberate 
view  of  our  duty,  we  possibly  can.  Judging  by  all  they  say 
and  do,  and  by  the  subject  and  nature  of  their  controversy 
with  us,  let  us  determine,  if  we  can,  what  will  satisfy  them  ? 

Will  they  be  satisfied  if  the  territories  be  unconditionally 
surrendered  to  them  ?  We  know  they  will  not.  In  all  their 
present  complaints  against  us,  the  territories  are  scarcely  men 
tioned.  Invasions  and  insurrections  are  the  rage  now.  Will 
it  satisfy  them  if,  in  the  future,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with 
invasions  and  insurrections?  We  know  it  will  not.  We  so 
know  because  we  know  we  never  had  anything  to  do  with  in 
vasions  and  insurrections  ;  and  yet  this  total  abstaining  does 
not  exempt  us  from  the  charge  and  the  denunciation. 

The  question  recurs,  what  will  satisfy  them  ?  Simply  this  : 
We  must  not  only  let  them  alone,  but  we  must,  somehow, 
convince  them  that  we  do  let  them  alone.  This,  we  know  by 
experience,  is  no  easy  task.  We  have  been  so  trying  to  con 
vince  them,  from  the  very  beginning  of  our  organization,  but 


324  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES    OF 

with  no  success.  In  all  our  platforms  and  speeches  we  have 
constantly  protested  our  purpose  to  let  them  alone  ;  but  this 
has  had  no  tendency  to  convince  them.  Alike  unavailing  to 
convince  them"  is  the  fact  that  they  hare  never  detected  a  man 
of  us  in  any  attempt  to  disturb  them. 

These  natural,  and  apparently  adequate  means  all  failing, 
what  will  convince  them  ?  This,  and  this  only  :  cease  to  call 
slavery  u'rong,  and  join  them  in  calling  it  right.  And  this 
must  be  done  thoroughly — done  in  acts  as  well  as  in  words. 
Silence  will  not  be  tolerated — we  must  place  ourselves  avow 
edly  with  them.  Douglas's  new  sedition  law  must  be  enacted 
and  enforced,  suppressing  all  declarations  that  slavery  is 
wrong,  whether  made  in  politics,  in  presses,  in  pulpits,  or  in 
private.  We  must  arrest  and  return  their  fugitive  slaves  with 
greedy  pleasure.  We  must  pull  down  our  Free-State  consti 
tutions.  The  whole  atmosphere  must  be  disinfected  from  all 
taint  of  opposition  to  slavery,  before  they  will  cease  to  be 
lieve  that  all  their  troubles  proceed  from  us. 

I  am  quite  aware  they  do  not  state  their  case  precisely  in 
this  way.  Most  of  them  would  probably  say  to  us,  "  Let  us 
alone,  do  nothing  to  us,  and  say  what  you  please  about  sla 
very."  But  we  do  let  them  alone — have  never  disturbed  them 
— so  that,  after  all,  it  is  what  we  say,  which  dissatisfies  them. 
They  will  continue  to  accuse  us  of  doing,  until  we  cease  say 
ing. 

I  am  also  aware  they  have- not,  as  yet,  in  terms,  demanded 
the  overthrow  of  our  Free-State  constitutions.  Yet  those 
constitutions  declare  the  wrong  of  slavery,  with  more  solemn 
emphasis,  than  do  all  pther  sayings  against  it ;  and  when  all 
these  other  sayings  shall  have  been  silenced,  the  overthrow  of 
these  constitutions  will  be  demanded,  and  nothing  be  left  to 
resist  the  demand.  It  is  nothing  io  the  contrary,  that  they  do 
not  demand  the  whole  of  this  just  now.  Demanding  what 
they  do,  and  for  the  reason  they  do,  they  can  voluntarily  stop 
nowhere  short  of  this  consummation.  Holding,  as  they  do, 
that  slavery  is  morally  right,  and  socially  elevating,  they  can 
not  cease  to  demand  a  full  national  recognition  of  it,  as  a  legal 
right,  and  a  social  blessing. 

Nor  can  we  justifiably  withhold  this,  on  any  ground,  save 
our  conviction  that  slavery  is  wrong.  If  slavery  is  right,  ail 
words,  acts,  laws,  and  constitutions  against  it,  are  themselves 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  325 

wrong,  and  should  be  silenced,  and  swept  away.  If  it  is 
right,  we  cannot  justly  object  to  its  nationality — its  universal 
ity  ;  if  it  is  wrong,  they  cannot  justly  insist  upon  its  extension 
— its  enlargement.  All  they  ask,  we  could  readily  grant,  if 
we  thought  slavery  right  ;  all  we  ask,  they  could  as  readily 
grant,  if  they  thought  it  wrong.  Their  thinking  it  right,  .and 
our  thinking  it  wrong,  is  the  precise  fact  upon  which  depends 
the  whole  controversy.  Thinking  it  right,  as  they  do,  they 
are  not  to  blame  for  desiring  its  full  recognition,  as  being 
right ;  but,  thinking  it  wrong,  as  we  do,  can  we  yield  to 
them?  Can  we  cast  our  votes  with  their  view,  and  against 
our  own  ?  In  view  of  our  moral,  social,  and  political  respon 
sibilities,  can  we  do  this  ? 

Wrong  as  we  think  slavery  is,  we  can  yet  afford  to  let  it 
alone  where  it  is,  because  that  much  is  due  to  the  necessity 
arising  from  its  actual  presence  in  the  nation  ;  but  can  we, 
while  our  votes  will  prevent  it,  allow  it  to  spread  into  the  na 
tional  territories,  and  to  overrun  us  here  in  these  free  States  1 

If  our  sense  of  duty  forbids  this,  then  let  us  stand  by  our 
duty,  fearlessly  and  effectively.  Let  us  be  diverted  by  none  of 
those  sophistical  contrivances  wherewith  we  are  so  industri 
ously  plied  and  belabored — contrivances  such  as  groping  for 
some  middle  ground  between  the  right  and  the  wrong,  vain  as 
the  search  for  a  man  who  should  be  neither  a  living  man  nor 
a  dead  man — such  as  a  policy  of  "  don't  care"  on  a  question 
about  which  all  true  men  do  care — such  as  Union  appeals  be 
seeching  true  Union  men  to  yield  to  disunionists,  reversing  the 
divine  rule,  and  calling,  not  the  sinners,  but  the  righteous  to 
repentance — such  as  invocations  to  Washington,  imploring 
men  to  unsay  what  Washington  said,  and  undo  what  Wash 
ington  did. 

Neither  let  us  be  slandered  from  our  duty  by  false  accusa 
tions  against  us,  nor  frightened  from  it  by  menaces  of  destruc 
tion  to  the  government,  nor  of  dungeons  to  ourselves.  Let  us 
have  faith  that  right  makes  might,  and  in  that  faith,  let  us,  to 
the  end,  dare  to  do  our  duty,  as  we  understand  it. 


326  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


THE    WAR    WITH    MEXICO, 

IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES, 
Januai-y  12th,  1848. 

On  the  resolutions  referring  the  President's  Message  to  the 
various  Standing  Committees 

Mr.  LINCOLN  addressed  the  Committee  as  follows : 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Some,  if  not  all,  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House,  who  have  addressed  the  Committee 
wiihin  the  last  two  days,  have  spoken  rather  cornplainingly, 
it'  I  have  rightly  understood  them,  of  the  vote  given  a  week 
or  ten  days  ago,  declaring  that  the  war  with  Mexico  was  un 
necessarily  and  unconstitutionally  commenced  by  the  Presi 
dent.  I  admit  that  such  a  vote  should  not  be  given  in  mere 
party  wantonness,  and  that  the  one  given  is  justly  censurable, 
if  it  have  no  other  or  better  foundation.  I  am  one  of  those 
who  joined  in  that  vote  ;  and  I  did  so  under  my  best  impres 
sion  of  the  truth  of  the  case.  How  I  got  this  impression,  and 
how  it  may  possibly  be  removed,  I  will  now  try  to  show. 
When  the  war  began,  it  was  my  opinion  that  all  those  who, 
because  of  knowing  too  little,  or  because  of  knowing  too 
much,  could  not  conscientiously  approve  the  conduct  of  the 
President  (in  the  beginning  of  it),  should,  nevertheless,  as 
good  citizens  and  patriots,  remain  silent  on  that  point,  at 
least  till  the  war  should  be  ended.  Some  leading  Democrats, 
including  Ex- President  Van  Buren,  have  taken  this  same  view, 
as  I  understand  them  ;  and  I  adhered  to  it  and  acted  upon  it, 
until  since  I  took  my  seat  here  ;  and  I  think  I  should  still 
adhere  to  it,  were  it  not  that  the  President  and  his  friends 
would  not  allow  it  to  be  so.  Besides,  the  continual  effort  of 
the  President  to  argue  every  silent  vote  given  for  supplies  into 
an  endorsement  of  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  his  conduct,  be 
sides  that  singularly  candid  paragraph  in  his  late  message,  in 
which  he  tells  us  that  Congress,  with  great  unanimity  (only 
two  in  the  Senate,  and  fourteen  in  the  House  dissenting),  had 
declared  that  "  by  the  act  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico  a  state 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  327 

of  war  exists  between  that  government  and  the  United  States  ;" 
when  the  same  journals  that  informed  him  of  this,  also  in 
formed  him  that,  when  that  declaration  stood  disconnected 
from  the  question  of  supplies,  sixty-seven  in  the  House,  and 
not  fourteen,  merely,  voted  against  it ;  besides  this  open  at 
tempt  to  prove,  by  telling  the  truth,  what  he  could  not  prove 
by  telling  the  whole  truth,  demanding  of  all  who  will  not  sub 
mit  to  be  misrepresented,  in  justice  to  themselves,  to  speak 
out.  Besides  all  this,  one  of  my  colleagues  [Mr.  RICHARD 
SON]  at  a  very  early  day  in  the  session,  brought  in  a  set  of 
resolutions,  expressly  endorsing  the  original  justice  of  the  war 
on  the  part  of  the  President.  Upon  these  resolutions  when 
they  shall  be  put  upon  their  passage,  I  shall  be  compelled  to 
vote ;  so  that  I  cannot  be  silent,  if  I  would.  Seeing  this,  I 
went  about  preparing  myself  to  give  the  vote  understandingly, 
when  it  should  corne.  I  carefully  examined  the  President's 
messages,  to  ascertain  what  he  himself  had  said  and  proved 
upon  the  point.  The  result  of  this  examination  was  to  make 
the  impression,  that,  taking  for  true  all  the  President  states  as 
facts,  he  falls  far  short  of  proving  his  justification  ;  and  that  the 
President  would  have  gone  farther  with  his  proof,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  small  matter  that  the  truth  would  not  permit 
him.  Under  the  impression  thus  made,  I  gave  the  vote  before 
mentioned,  I  propose  now  to  give  concisely  the  process  of  the 
examination  1  made,  and  how  I  reached  the  conclusion  I 
did. 

The  President,  in  his  first  message  of  May,  1846,  declares 
that  the  soil  was  ours,  on  which  hostilities  were  commenced 
by  Mexico ;  and  he  repeats  that  declaration,  almost  in  the 
same  language,  in  each  successive  annual  message — thus  show 
ing  that  ha  esteems  that  point  a  highly  essential  one.  In  the 
importance  of  that  point,  I  entirely  agree  with  the  President. 
To  my  judgment,  it  is  the  very  point  upon  which  he  should  be 
justified  or  condemned.  In  his  message  of  December,  184C, 
it  seems  to  have  occurred  to  him,  as  is  certainly  true,  that 
title,  ownership  to  soil,  or  anything  else,  is  not  a  simple  fact, 
but  is  a  conclusion  following  one  or  more  simple  facts ;  and 
that  it  was  incumbent  upon  him  to  present  the  facts  from 
which  he  concluded  the  soil  was  ours  on  which  the  first  blood 
of  the  war  was  shed. 

Accordingly,  a  little  below  the  middle  of  page  twelve,  in  the 


326  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


THE    WAK    WITH    MEXICO, 

IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES, 
January  12th,  1848. 

On  the  resolutions  referring  the  President's  Message  to  the 
various  Standing  Committees 

Mr.  LINCOLN  addressed  the  Committee  as  follows : 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Some,  if  not  all,  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House,  who  have  addressed  the  Committee 
wi'.hin  the  last  two  days,  have  spoken  rather  complainingly, 
if  I  have  rightly  understood  them,  of  the  vote  given  a  week 
or  ten  days  ago,  declaring  that  the  war  with  Mexico  was  un 
necessarily  and  unconstitutionally  commenced  by  the  Presi 
dent.  I  admit  that  such  a  vote  should  not  be  given  in  mere 
party  wantonness,  and  that  the  one  given  is  justly  censurable, 
if  it  have  no  other  or  better  foundation.  I  am  one  of  those 
who  joined  in  that  vote  ;  and  I  did  so  under  my  best  impres 
sion  of  the  truth  of  the  case.  How  I  got  this  impression,  and 
how  it  may  possibly  be  removed,  I  will  now  try  to  show. 
When  the  war  began,  it  was  my  opinion  that  all  those  who, 
because  of  knowing  too  little,  or  because  of  knowing  too 
much,  could  not  conscientiously  approve  the  conduct  of  the 
President  (in  the  beginning  of  it),  should,  nevertheless,  as 
good  citizens  and  patriots,  remain  silent  on  that  point,  at 
least  till  the  war  should  be  ended.  Some  leading  Democrats, 
including  Ex- President  Van  Buren,  have  taken  this  same  view, 
as  I  understand  them  ;  and  I  adhered  to  it  and  acted  upon  it, 
until  since  I  took  my  seat  here  ;  and  I  think  I  should  still 
adhere  to  it,  were  it  not  that  the  President  and  his  friends 
would  not  allow  it  to  be  so.  Besides,  the  continual  effort  of 
the  President  to  argue  every  silent  vote  given  for  supplies  into 
an  endorsement  of  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  his  conduct,  be 
sides  that  singularly  candid  paragraph  in  his  late  message,  in 
which  he  tells  us  that  Congress,  with  great  unanimity  (only 
two  in  the  Senate,  and  fourteen  in  the  House  dissenting),  had 
declared  that  "  by  the  act  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico  a  state 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  327 

of  war  exists  between  that  government  and  the  United  States  ;" 
when  the  same  journals  that  informed  him  of  this,  also  in 
formed  him  that,  when  that  declaration  stood  disconnected 
from  the  question  of  supplies,  sixty-seven  in  the  House,  and 
not  fourteen,  merely,  voted  against  it ;  besides  this  open  at 
tempt  to  prove,  by  telling  the  truth,  what  he  could  not  prove 
by  telling  the  whole  truth,  demanding  of  all  who  will  not  sub 
mit  to  be  misrepresented,  in  justice  to  themselves,  to  speak 
out.  Besides  all  this,  one  of  my  colleagues  [Mr.  RICHARD 
SON]  at  a  very  early  day  in  the  session,  brought  in  a  set  of 
resolutions,  expressly  endorsing  the  original  justice  of  the  war 
on  the  part  of  the  President.  Upon  these  resolutions  when 
they  shall  be  put  upon  their  passage,  I  shall  be  compelled  to 
vote ;  so  that  I  cannot  be  silent,  if  I  would.  Seeing  this,  I 
went  about  preparing  myself  to  give  the  vote  understandingly, 
when  it  should  corne.  I  carefully  examined  the  President's 
messages,  to  ascertain  what  he  himself  had  said  and  proved 
upon  the  point.  The  result  of  this  examination  was  to  make 
the  impression,  that,  taking  for  true  all  the  President  states  as 
facts,  he  falls  far  short  of  proving  his  justification  ;  and  that  the 
President  would  have  gone  farther  with  his  proof,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  small  matter  that  the  truth  would  not  permit 
him.  Under  the  impression  thus  made,  I  gave  the  vote  before 
mentioned,  I  propose  now  to  give  concisely  the  process  of  the 
examination  1  made,  and  how  I  reached  the  conclusion  I 
did. 

The  President,  in  his  first  message  of  May,  1846,  declares 
that  the  soil  was  ours,  on  which  hostilities  were  commenced 
by  Mexico ;  and  he  repeats  that  declaration,  almost  in  the 
same  language,  in  each  successive  annual  message — thus  show 
ing  that  he  esteems  that  point  a  highly  essential  one.  In  the 
importance  of  that  point,  I  entirely  agree  with  the  President. 
To  my  judgment,  it  is  the  very  point  upon  which  he  should  be 
justified  or  condemned.  In  his  message  of  December,  184G, 
it  seems  to  have  occurred  to  him,  as  is  certainly  true,  that 
title,  ownership  to  soil,  or  anything  else,  is  not  a  simple  fact, 
but  is  a  conclusion  following  one  or  more  simple  facts ;  and 
that  it  was  incumbent  upon  him  to  present  the  facts  from 
which  he  concluded  the  soil  was  ours  on  which  the  first  blood 
of  the  war  was  shed. 

Accordingly,  a  little  below  the  middle  of  page  twelve,  in  the 


328  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

message  last  referred  to,  he  enters  upon  that  task,  forming  an 
issue  and  introducing  testimony,  extending  the  whole  to  a  lit 
tle  below  the  middle  of  page  fourteen.  Now  I  propose  to  try 
to  show  that  the  whole  of  this  issue  and  evidence  is  from 
beginning  to  end,  the  sheerest  deception.  The  issue,  as  he 
presents  it,  is  in  these  words,  "  But  there  are  those  who, 
conceding  all  this  to  be  true,  assume  the  ground  that  the  true 
western  boundary  of  Texas  is  the  Nueces,  instead  of  the  Rio 
Grande ;  and  that,  therefore,  in  marching  our  army  to  the 
east  bank  of  the  latter  river,  we  passed  the  Texan  line  and 
invaded  the  territory  of  Mexico."  Now,  this  issue  is  made 
up  of  two  affirmatives,  and  no  negative.  The  main  deception 
of  it  is,  that  it  assumes  as  true  that  one  river  or  the  other  is 
necessarily  the  boundary,  and  cheats  the  superficial  thinker 
entirely  out  of  the  idea  that  possibly  the  boundary  is  some 
where  between  the  two,  and  not  actually  at  either.  A  further 
deception  is,  that  it  will  be  in  evidence,  which  a  true  issue 
would  exclude.  A  true  issue  made  by  the  President  would 
be  about  as  follows  :  "  I  say  the  soil  was  ours  on  ^vhich  the 
first  blood  was  shed ;  there  are  those  who  say  it  was  not." 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  President's  evidence  as  appli 
cable  to  such  an  issue.  When  that  evidence  is  analyzed,  it  is 
all  included  in  the  following  propositions : 

1.  That  the  Rio  Grande  was  the  western  boundary  of  Lou 
isiana  as  we  purchased  it  of  France  in  1803. 

2.  That  the   Republic  of  Texas  always  claimed  the   Rio 
Grande  as  her  western  boundary. 

3.  That  by  various  acts  she  had  claimed  it  on  paper. 

4.  That  Santa  Anna  in  his  treaty  with  Texas  recognized 
the  Rio  Grande  as  her  boundary. 

5. "That  Texas  before,  and  the  United  States  after  annex 
ation,  had  exercised  jurisdiction  beyond  the  Nueces,  between  the 
two  rivers. 

6.  That  our  Congress  understood  the  boundary  of  Texas  to 
extend  beyond  the  Nueces 

Now  for  each  of  these  in  its  turn : 

His  first  item  is,  that  the  Rio  Grande  was  the  western 
boundary  of  Louisiana  as  we  purchased  it  from  France  in 
1803  ;  and  seeming  to  expect  this  to  be  disputed,  he  argues 
over  the  amount  of  nearly  a  page  to  prove  it  true  ;  at  the  end 
of  which  he  lets  us  know  that,  by  the  treaty  of  1819,  we  sold 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  329 


to  Spain  the  whole  country  from  the  Eio  Grande  eastward  to 
the  Sabine.  Now,  admitting,  for  the  present,  that  the  Rio 
Grande  was  the  boundary  of  Louisiana,  what,  under  heaven, 
had  that  to  do  with  the  present  boundary  between  us  and 
Mexico  ?  How,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  line  that  once  divided 
your  land  from  nr.ine  can  still  be  the  boundary  between  us  after 
I  have  gold  the  land  to  you,  is  to  me,  beyond  all  comprehen 
sion.  And  how  any  man,  with  an  honest  purpose  only  of 
proving  the  truth,  could  even  have  thought  of  introducing  such 
a  fact  to  prove  such  an  issue,  is  equally  incomprehensible.  The 
outrage  upon  common  rights  of  seizing  as  our  own  what  we 
have  once  sold,  merely  because  it  ivas  ours  before  we  sold  it, 
is  only  equalled  by  the  outrage  on  common  sense  of  any  at 
tempt  to  justify  it. 

The  President's  next  piece  of  evidence  is,  that  "the  Re 
public  of  Texas  always  claimed  this  river  [Rio  Grande]  as  her 
western  boundary."  That  is  not.  true  in  fact.  Texas  has 
claimed  it,  but  she  has  not  always  claimed  it.  There  is,  at 
least,  one  distinguished  exception.  Pier  State  constitution — 
the  Republic's  most  solemn  and  well-considered  act — that 
which  may,  without  impropriety,  be  called  her  last  will  and 
testament,  revoking  all  others — makes  no  such  claim.  But 
suppose  she  had  always  claimed  it  ;  has  not  Mexico  always 
claimed  the  contrary  ?  So  that  there  is  but  claim  against  claim, 
leaving  nothing  proved  until  we  get  back  of  the  claims,  and 
find  which  has  the  better  foundation. 

Though  not  in  the  order  in  which  the  President  presents 
his  evidence,  I  now  consider  that  class  of  his  statements, 
which  are  in  substance  nothing  more  than  Texas  has,  by  va 
rious  acts  of  her  Convention  and  Congress,  claimed  the  Rio 
Grande  as  her  boundary — on  paper.  I  mean  here  what  he 
says  about  the  fixing  of  the  Rio  Grande  as  her  boundary  in 
her  old  constitution  (not  her  State  constitution),  about  form 
ing  congressional  districts,  counties,  etc.  Now,  all  of  this  is 
but  naked  claim,  and  what  I  have  already  said  about  claims  is 
strictly  applicable  to  this.  If  I  should  claim  your  land  by 
word  of  mouth,  that  certainly  would  not  make  it  mine  ;  and 
if  I  were  to  claim  it  by  a  deed  which  I  had  made  myself,  and 
with  which  you  had  had  nothing  to  do,  the  claim  would 
be  quite  the  same  in  substance,  or  rather,  in  utter  nothing 
ness. 


330  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


I  next  consider  the  President's  statement,  that  Santa  Anna, 
in  his  treaty  with  Texas,  recognized  the  Kio  Grande  as  the 
western  boundary  of  Texas.  Besides  the  position  so  often 
taken,  that  Santa  Anna,  while  a  prisoner-of-war — a  captive — 
could  not  bind  Mexico  by  a  treaty,  which  I  deem  conclusive ; 
besides  this,  I  wish  to  say  something  in  relation  to  this  treaty, 
K)  called  by  the  President,  with  Santa  Anna.  If  any  man 
would  like  to  be  amused  by  a  sight  at  that  little  thing,  which 
the  President  calls  by  that  big  name,  we  can  have  it  by  turn 
ing  to  Niks'  Register^  volume  50,  page  336.  And  if  anyone 
should  suppose  that  Ntiest  Register  is  a  curious  repository  of  so 
mighty  a  document  as  a  solemn  treaty  between  nations,  I  can 
only  say  that  I  learned  to  a  tolerable  degree  of  certainty,  by 
inquiry  -at  the  State  Department,  that  the  President  himself 
never  saw  it  anywhere  else. 

By-the-way,  I  believe  I  should  not  err  if  I  were  to  declare, 
that  during  the  first  ten  years  of  the  existence  of  that  docu 
ment,  it  was  never  by  anybody  called  a  treaty ;  that  it  was 
never  so  called  till  the  President,  in  his  extremity,  attempted, 
by  so  calling  it,  to  wring  something  from  it  in  justification  of 
himself  in  connection  with  the  Mexican  wars. 

It  has  none  of  the  distinguishing  features  of  a  treaty.  It 
does  not  call  itself  a  treaty.  Santa  Anna  does  not  therein 
assume  to  bind  Mexico  ;  he  assumes  only  to  act  as  the  Presi 
dent,  commander-in-chief  of  the  Mexican  army  and  navy,  and 
stipulates  that  the  then  present  hostilities  should  cease,  and 
that  he  would  not  himself,  take  up  arms,  nor  influence  the  Mexi 
can  people  to  take  up  arms,  against -Texas,  during  the  existence 
of  the  war  of  Independence.  He  did  not  recognize  the  inde 
pendence  of  Texas  ;  he  did  not  assume  to  put  an  end  to  the 
w£r,  but  clearly  indicated  his  expectation  of  its  continuance  ; 
he  did  not  say  one  word  about  boundary,  and  most  probably 
never  thought  of  it.  It  is  stipulated  therein  that  the  Mexican 
forces  should  evacuate  the  territory  of  Texas,  passing  to  the 
other  side  of  the  Rio  Grande;  and  in  another  article  it  is  stipu 
lated,  that  to  prevent  collision  between  the  armies,  the  Texan 
should  not  approach  nearer  than  within  five  leagues — of  what 
is  not  said — but  clearly,  from  the  object  stated,  it  is  of  the 
llio  Grande.  Now,  if  this  is  a  treaty  recognizing  the  Hio 
Grande  as  the  boundary  of  Texas,  it  contains  a  singular  fea 
ture  of  stipulating  that  Texas  shall  not  go  within  five  leagues 
of  her  own  boundary. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  331 

Next  comes  the  evidence  of  Texas  before  annexation,  and 
the  United  States  afterward,  exercising  jurisdiction  beyond  the 
Nueces,  and  between  the  two  rivers.  This  actual  exercise  of  ju 
risdiction  is  the  very  class  or  quality  of  evidence  we  want.  It 
is  excellent,  so  far  as  it  goes  ;  but  does  it  go  far  enough  'I  He 
tells  us  it  went  beyond  the  Nueces,  but  he  does  not  tell  us  it 
went  to  the  Rio  Grande.  He  tells  us  jurisdiction  was  exer 
cised  between  the  two  rivers,  but  he  does  not  tell  us  it  was  ex 
ercised  over  all  the  territory  between  them.  Some  simple- 
minded  people  think  it  possible  to  cross  one  river  and  go  beyond 
it,  without  going  all  the  way  to  the  next ;  that  jurisdiction  may 
be  exercised  between  two  rivers  without  covering  all  the  coun 
try  between  them.  I  know  a  man.  not  very  unlike  myself, 
who  exercises  jurisdiction  over  a  piece  of  land  between  the 
Wabash  and  the  Mississippi,  and  yet  so  far  is  this  from  being 
all  there  is  between  those  rivers,  that  it  is  just  one  hundred 
and  fifty-two  feet  long  by  fifty  wide,  and  no  part  of  it  much 
within  a  hundred  miles  of  either.  He  has  a  neighbor  between 
him  and  the  Mississippi — that  is,  just  across  the  street,  in  that 
direction — whom,  I  am  sure,  he  could  neither  persuade  nor 
force  to  give  up  his  habitation  ;  but  which,  nevertheless,  he 
could  certainly  annex,  if  it  were  to  be  done  by  merely  stand 
ing  on  his  own  side  of  the  street  and  claiming  it.  or  even  set 
ting  down  and  writing  a  deed  for  it. 

But  next,  the  President  tells  us,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  understood  the  State  of  Texas  they  admitted  into  the 
Union,  to  extend  beyond  the  Nueces.  Well,  I  suppose  they 
did — I  certainly  so  understood  it — but  how  far  beyond"? 
That  Congress  did  not  understand  it  to  extend  clear  to  the  Rio 
Grande  is  quite  certain  by  the  fact  of  their  joint  resolutions 
for  admission,  expressly  leaving  all  questions  of  boundary  to 
future  adjustment  And,  it  may  be  added,  that  Texas  herself 
is  proved  to  have  had  the  same  understanding  of  it  that  our 
Congress  had,  by  the  fact  of  the  exact  conformity  of  her  new 
constitution  to  those  resolutions. 

I  am  now  through  the  whole  of  the  President's  evidence; 
and  it  is  a  singular  fact,  that  if  any  one  should  declare  the 
President  sent  the  army  into  a  settlement  of  Mexican  people, 
who  had  never  submitted,  by  consent  or  force,  to  the  authority 
of  Texas  or  the  United  States,  and  that  there,  and  thereby,  the 
first  blood  of  the  war  was  shed,  there  is  not  one  word  in  all 


332  I<  I  F  E     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


the  President  has  said  which  would  either  admit  or  deny  the 
declaration.  In  this  strange  omission  chiefly  consists  the  de 
ception  of  the  President's  evidence;  an  omission  which,  it 
does  seem  to  me,  could  scarcely  have  occurred  but  by  design. 
My  way  of  living  leads  me  to  be  about  the  courts  of  justice; 
and  there  I  have  sometimes  seen  a  g.ood  lawyer,  struggling 
for  his  client's  neck,  in  a  desperate  case,  employ  every  artiiice 
to  work  around,  befog,  and  cover  up  with  many  words,  some 
position  pressed  upon  him  by  the  prosecution,  which  he  dared 
not  admit,  and  yet  could  not  deny.  Party  bias  may  help  to 
make  it  appear  so  ;  but,  with  all  the  allowance  I  can  make  for 
such  a  bias,  it  still  does  appear  to  me  that  just  such,  and  from 
just  such  necessity,  is  the  President's  struggles  in  this  case. 
Sometime  after  my  colleague  [Mr.  Richardson]  introduced 
the  resolutions  I  have  mentioned,  I  introduced  a  preamble, 
resolution,  and  interrogatories,  intended  to  draw  the  President 
out,  if  possible,  on  this  hitherto  untrodden  ground.  To  show 
their  relevancy,  I  propose  to  state  rny  understanding  of  the  true 
rule  for  ascertaining  the  boundary  between  Texas  and  Mexico. 
It  is,  that  wherever  Texas  was  exercising  jurisdiction  was  hers  ; 
and  wherever  Mexico  was  exercising  jurisdiction  was  hers  ;  and 
that  whatever  separated  the  actual  exercise  of  jurisdiction  of 
the  one  from  that  of  the  other,  was  the  true  boundary  between 
them.  If,  as  is  probably  true,  Texas  was  exercising  jurisdic 
tion  along  the  w'estern  bank  of  the  Nueces,  and  Mexico  was 
exercising  it  along  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  then 
neither  river  was  the  boundary,  but  the  uninhabited  country 
between  the  two  was.  The  extent  of  our  territory  in  the  re 
gion  depended,  not  upon  any  treaty-fixed  boundary  (for  no  treaty 
had  attended  it),  but  on  revolution.  Any  people,  anywhere, 
being  inclined,  and  having  the  power,  have  the  right  to  rise 
up  and  shake  off  the  existing  government,  and  form  a  new  one 
that  suits  them  better.  This  is  a  most  valuable,  a  most  sacred 
right — a  right  which,  we  hope  and  believe,  is  to  liberate  the 
world.  Nor  is  this  right  confined  to  cases  in  which  the  whole 
people  of  an  existing  government  may  choose  to  exercise  it. 
Any  portion  of  such  people  that  can,  may  revolutionize,  and 
make  their  own  of  so  much  of  the  territory  as  they  inhabit. 
More  than  this,  a  majority  of  any  portion  of  such  people  may 
revolutionize,  putting  down  a  minority,  intermingled  with  or 
near  about  them,  who  may  oppose  their  movements.  Such 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  333 

minority  was  precisely  the  case  of  the  Tories  in  our  own  Rev 
olution.  It  is  a  quality  of  revolutions  not  to  go  by  old  lines  or 
old  laws  ;  but  to  break  up  both,  and  make  new  ones.  As 
to  the  country  now  in  question,  we  bought  it  of  France  in 
1803,  and  sold  it  to  Spain  in  1819,  according  to  the  Presi 
dent's  statement.  After  this,  all  Mexico,  including  Texas, 
revolutionized  against  Spain;  and  still  later,  Texas  revolu 
tionized  against  Mexico.  In  my  view,  just  so  far  as  she  car 
ried  her  revolution,  by  obtaining  the  actual,  willing  or  unwil 
ling,  submission  of  the  people,  so  far  the  country  was  hers, 
and  no  farther. 

Now,  sir,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  very  best  evidence 
as  to  whether  Texas  had  actually  carried  her  revolution  to  the 
place  where  the  hostilities  of  the  present  war  commenced,  let 
the  President  answer  the  interrogatories  I  proposed,  as  before 
mentioned,  or  some  other  similar  ones.  Let  him  answer  fully, 
fairly,  and  candidly.  Let  him  answer  with  facts,  and  not 
with  argument.  Let  him  remember  he  sits  where  Washing 
ton  sat ;  and,  so  remembering,  let  him  answer  as  Washington. 
As  a  nation  should  not,  and  the  Almighty  will  not,  be  evaded, 
so  let  him  attempt  no  evasion,  no  equivocation.  And  if,  so 
answering,  he  can  show  that  the  soil  was  ours  where  the  first 
blood  of  the  war  was  shed — that  it  was  not  within  an  inhabit 
ed  country,  or,  if  within  such,  that  the  inhabitants  had  sub 
mitted  themselves  to  the  civil  authority  of  Texas,  or  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  site  of  Fort 
Brown — then  am  I  with  him  for  his  justification.  In  that 
case  I  shall  be  most  happy  to  reverse  the  vote  I  gave  the  other 
day.  I  have  a  selfish  motive  for  desiring  that  the  President 
may  do  this  ;  I  expect  to  give  some  votes,  in  connection  with 
the  war,  which,  without  his  so  doing,  will  be  of  doubtful  pro 
priety,  in  my  own  judgment,  which  will  be  free  from  the  doubt 
if  he  does  so.  But  if  he  cannot  or  will  not  do  this — if,  on  any 
pretence,  or  no  pretence,  he  shall  refuse  or  omit  it — then  I 
should  be  fully  convinced  of  what  I  more  than  suspect  already, 
that  he  is  deeply  conscious  of  being  in  the  wrong ;  that  he  feels 
the  blood  of  this  war,  like  the  blood  of  Abel,  is  crying  to 
Heaven  against  him  ;  that  he  ordered  Gen.  Taylor  into  the 
midst  of  a  peaceful  Mexican  settlement,  purposely  to  bring  on  a 
war  ;  that  originally  having  some  strong  motive — what,  I  will 
not  stop  now  to  give  my  opinion  concerning — to  involve  the 


334  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


two  countries  in  a  war,  and  trusting  to  escape  scrutiny  by  fixing 
the  public  gaze  upon  the  exceeding  brightness  of  military  glory, 
this  attractive  rainbow  that  rises  in  showers  of  blood — that 
serpent's  eye  that  charms  to  destroy — he  plunged  into  it,  and 
has  swept  on  and  on,  till,  disappointed  in  his  calculation  of 
the  ease  with  which  Mexico  might  be  subdued,  he  now  finds 
himself,  he  knows  not  where.  How  like  the  half  insane 
mumbling  of  a  fever  dream,  is  the  whole  war  part  of  the 
late  message!  At  one  time  telling  us  that  Mexico  has 
nothing  whatever  that  we  can  get  but  territory  :  at  another, 
showing  us  how  we  can  support  the  war  by  levying  contribu 
tions  on  Mexico.  At  one  time  urging  the  national  honor, 
the  security  of  the  future*,  the  prevention  of  foreign  interference, 
and  even  the  good  of  Mexico  herself,  as  among  the  objects  of 
the  two ;  at  another,  telling  us  that,  "  To  reject  indemnity  by 
refusing  to  accept  a  cession  of  territory,  would  be  to  abandon 
all  our  just  demands  and  to  wage  the  war,  bearing  all  its  ex 
penses,  without  a  purpose  or  definite  object."" 

So,  then,  the  national  honor,  security  of  the  future,  and 
everything  but  territorial  indemnity,  may  be  considered  the  no 
purposes  and  indefinite  objects  of  the  war,  but,  having  it  now 
settled  that  territorial  indemnity  is  the  only  object,  we  are 
urged  to  seize  by  legislation  here,  all  that  he  was  content  to 
take  a  few  months  ago,  and  the  whole  province  of  Lower  Cali 
fornia  to  boot,  and  to  still  carry  on  the  war — to  take  all  we 
are  fighting  for,  and  still  fight  on.  Again,  the  President  is  re 
solved,  under  all  circumstances,  to  have  full  territorial  indemni 
ty  for  the  expenses  of  the  war,  but  he  forgets  to  tell  us  how 
we  are  to  get  the  excoss,  after  those  expenses  shall  have  sur 
passed  the  value  of  the  whole  of  the  Mexican  territory.  So, 
again,  he  insists  that  the  separate  national  existence  of  Mexico 
shall  be  maintained  ;  but  he  does  not  tell  us  how  this  can  be 
done  after  we  shall  have  taken  all  her  territory.  Lest  the 
questions  I  here  suggest,  be  considered  speculative  merely,  let 
me  be  indulged  a  moment  in  trying  to  show  they  are  not. 

The  war  has  gone  on  some  twenty  months ;  for  the  ex 
penses  of  which,  together  with  an  inconsiderable  old  score, 
the  President  now  claims  about  one  half  of  the  Mexican  ter 
ritory,  and  that  by  far  the  better  half,  so  far  as  concerns  our 
ability  to  make  anything  out  of  it.-  It  is  comparatively  unin 
habited  ;  so  that  we  could  establish  land  offices  in  it,  ard  raise 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  335 

some  money  in  that  way.  But  the  other  half  is  already  in 
habited,  as  I  understand  it,  tolerably  densely  for  the  nature  of 
the  country  ;  and  all  its  lands,  or  all  that  are  valuable,  already 
appropriated  as  private  property.  How,  then,  are  we  to  make 
anything  out  of  these  lands  with  this  incumbrance  on  them,  or 
how  remove  the  incumbrance?  I  suppose  no  one  will  say 
we  should  kill  the  people,  or  drive  them  out,  or  make  slaves 
of  them,  or  even  confiscate  their  property  7  How,  then,  can 
we  make  much  out  of  this  part  of  the  territory  ?  If  the  prose 
cution  of  the  war  has,  in  expenses,  already  equalled  the  letter 
half  of  the  country,  how  long  its  future  prosecution  will  be  in 
equalling  the  less  valuable  half  is  not  a  speculative,  but  a  practi 
cal  question,  pressing  closely  upon  us  ;  and  yet  it  is  a  question 
which  the  President  seems  never  to  have  thought  of. 

As  to  the  mode  of  terminating  the  war  and  securing  peace, 
the  President  is  equally  wandering  and  indefinite.  First,  it  is 
to  be  done  by  a  more  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  in  the 
vital  parts  of  the  enemy's  country  ;  and,  after  apparently  talk 
ing  himself  tired  on  this  point,  the  President  drops  down  into 
a  half  despairing  tone,  and  tells  us,  that  "  with  a  people  dis 
tracted  and  divided  by  contending  factions,  and  a  government 
subject  to  constant  changes,  by  successive  revolutions,  the  con 
tinued  success  of  our  arms  may  fail  to  obtain  a  satisfactory  peace." 
Then  he  suggests  the  propriety  of  wheedling  the  Mexican  peo 
ple  to  desert  the  counsels  of  their  own  leaders,  and,  trusting 
in  our  protection,  to  set  up  a  government  from  which  we  can 
secure  a  satisfactory  peace,  telling  us  that  "  this  may  become  the 
only  mode  of  obtaining  such  a  peace.'"  But  soon  he  falls  into 
doubt  of  this  too,  and  then  drops  back  on  the  already  half- 
abandoned  ground  of  "more  vigorous  prosecution."  All  this 
shows  that  the  President  is  in  no  wise  satisfied  with  his  own 
positions.  First,  he  takes  up  one,  and,  in  attempting  to  argue 
us  with  it,  he  argues  himself  out  of  it ;  then  seizes  another  and 
goes  through  the  same  process  ;  and  then,  confused  at  being 
able  to  think  of  nothing  new,  he  snatches  up  the  old  one 
again,  which  he  has  some  time  before  cast  off.  His  mind, 
tasked  beyond  his  power,  is  running  hither  and  thither  like 
some  tortured  creature  on  a  burning  surface,  finding  no  posi 
tion  on  which  it  can  settle  down  and  be  at  ease. 

Again,  it  is  a  singular  omission  in  this  message,  that  it  no 
where  intimates  when  the  President  expects  the  war  to  termi- 


336  LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


nate.  At  its  beginning,  General  Scott  was,  by  this  same  Pres 
ident,  driven  into  disfavor,  if  not  disgrace,  for  intimating  that 
peace  could  not  be  conquered  in  less  than  three  or  four  months. 
But  now,  at  the  end  of  twenty  months,  during  which  time 
our  arms  have  given  us  the  most  splendid  successes — every  de 
partment,  and  every  part,  land  and  water,  officers  and  pri 
vates,  regulars  and  volunteers,  doing  all  that  men  could  do, 
and  hundreds  of  things  which  it  had  ever  before  been  thought 
that  man  could  not  do  ;  after  all  this,  this  same  President 
gives  us  a  long  message  without  showing  us  that,  as  to  the  end, 
he  has  himself  even  an  imaginary  conception.  As  1  have  be- 
foie.  said,  he  knows  not  where  he  is.  He  is  a  bewildered, 
confounded,  and  miserably  perplexed  man.  God  grant  he 
may  be  able  to  show  there  is  not  something  about  his  con 
science  more  painful  than  all  his  mental  perplexity ! 


INTEENAL    IMPKOVEMENTS. 

HOUSE   OF    REPRESENTATIVES. 

• 

June  20th,  1848.   - 

IN  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  on 
the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriation  Bill, 
Mr.  LINCOLN  said : 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  :  I  wish  at  all  times  and  in  no  way  to  prac 
tise  any  fraud  upon  the  House  or  the  Committee,  and  I  also 
desire  to  do  nothing  which  may  be  very  disagreeable  to  any 
of  the  members.  I  therefore  state,  in  advance,  that  my  object 
in  taking  the  floor  is  to  make  a  speech  on  the  general  subject 
of  internal  improvements,  and  if  I  am  out  of  order  in  doing 
so,  I  give  the  Chair  an  opportunity  of  so  deciding,  and  I  will 
take  my  seat. 

THE  CHAIR  :  I  will  not  undertake  to  anticipate  what  the 
gentleman  may  say  on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements. 
He  will,  therefore,  proceed  in  his  remarks,  and  if  any  question 
of  order  shall  be  made,  the  Chair  will  then  decide  it. 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  337 

Mr.  LINCOLN  :  At  an  early  day  of  this  session  the  President 
sent  us  what  may  be  properly  called  an  internal-improvement 
veto  message.  The  late  Democratic  Convention  which  sat  at 
Baltimore,  and  which  nominated  Gen.  Cass  for  the  Presiden 
cy,  adopted  a  set  of  resolutions,  now  called  the  Democratic 
platform,  among  which  is  one  in  these  words : 

"  That  the  Constitution  does  not  confer  upon  the  general 
government  the  power  to  commence  and  carry  on  a  general 
system  of  internal  improvements." 

General  Cass,  in  his  letter  accepting  the  nomination,  adds 
this  language : 

"  I  have  carefully  read  the  resolutions  of  the  Democratic 
National  Convention,  laying  down  the  platform  of  our  political 
faith,  and  I  adhere  to  them  as  firmly  as  I  approve  them  cor 
dially." 

These  things,  taken  together,  show  that  the  question  of  in 
ternal  improvements  is  now  more  distinctly  made — has  become 
more  intense,  than  at  any  former  period.  It  can  no  longer  be 
avoided.  The  veto  message  and  the  Baltimore  resolutions  I 
understand  to  be,  in  substance,  the  same  thing ;  the  latter 
being  the  mere  general  statement,  of  which  the  former  is  the 
amplification — the  bill  of  particulars.  While  I  know  there 
are  many  Democrats,  on  this  floor  and  elsewhere,  who  disap 
prove  that  message,  I  understand  that  all  who  shall  vote  for 
Gen.  Cass  will  thereafter  be  counted  as  having  approved  it,  as 
having  endorsed  all  its  doctrines.  I  suppose  all,  or  nearly  all, 
the  Democrats  will  vote  for  him.  Many  of  them  will  do  so, 
not  because  they  like  his  position  on  this  question,  but  because 
they  prefer  him,  being  wrong  in  this,  to  another  whom  they 
consider  further  wrong  on  other  questions.  In  this  way  the 
internal  improvement  Democrats  are  to  be,  by  a  sort  of  forced 
consent  carried  over,  and  arrayed  against  themselves  on  this 
measure  of  policy.  General  Cass,  once  elected,  will  not 
trouble  himself  to  make  a  constitutional  argument,  or,  per 
haps,  any  argument  at  all,  when  he  shall  veto  a  river  or  har 
bor  bill.  He  will  consider  it  a  sufficient  answer  to  all  Demo 
cratic  murmurs,  to  point  to  Mr.  Polk's  message  and  the 
"  Democratic  platform."  This  being  the  case,  the  question 
of  improvements  is  very  near  a  final  crisis ;  and  the  friends  of 
the  policy  must  now  battle,  and  battle  manfully,  or  surrender 
all.  In  this  view,  humble  as  I  am,  I  wish  to  review,  and  con- 

15 


338  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

test,  as  well  I  may,  the  general  positions  of  this  veto  message. 
When  I  say  general  positions,  I  mean  to  exclude  from  conside 
ration  so  much  as  relate  to  the  present  embarrassed  state  of  the 
treasury,  in  consequence  of  the  Mexican  war. 

Those  general  positions  are :  That  internal  improvements 
ought  not  to  be  made  by  the  general  government. 

1.  Because  they  would  overwhelm  the  treasury. 

2.  Because  while  their  burdens  would  be  general,  their  bene 
fits  would  be  local  and  partial,  involving  an  obnoxious  ine 
quality  ;  and 

3.  Because  they  would  be  unconstitutional. 

4.  Because  the  States  may  do  enough  by  the  levy  and  col 
lection  of  tonnage  duties  ;  or,  if  not, 

5.  That  the  Constitution  may  be  amended. 

"  Do  nothing  at  all,  lest  you  do  something  wrong,"  is  the 
sum  of  these  positions — is  the  sum  of  this  message — and  this, 
with  the  exception  of  what  is  said  about  constitutionality,  ap 
plying  as  forcibly  to  making  improvements  by  State  authority, 
as  by  the  national  authority.  So  that  we  must  abandon  the 
improvements  of  the  country  altogether,  by  any  and  every 
authority,  or  we  must  resist  and  repudiate  the  doctrines  of  the 
message.  Let  us  attempt  the  latter. 

The  first  position  is,  that  a  system  of  internal  improvement 
would  overwhelm  the  treasury. 

That  in  such  a  system  there  is  a  tendency  to  undue  expan 
sion,  is  not  to  be  denied.  Such  tendency  is  found  in  the  na 
ture  of  the  subject.  A  member  of  Congress  will  prefer  voting 
for  a  bill  which  contains  an  appropriation  for  his  district,  to 
voting  for  one  which  does  not ;  and  when  a  bill  shall  be  ex 
panded  till  every  district  is  provided  for,  that  it  will  be  too 
greatly  expanded  is  obvious.  But  is  this  any  more  true  in 
Congress  than  in  a  State  legislature  ?  If  a  member  of  Con 
gress  must  have  an  appropriation  for  his  district,  so  a  member 
of  a  legislature  must  have  one  for  his  county  ;  and  if  one  will 
overwhelm  the  national  treasury,  so  the  others  will  overwhelm 
the  State  treasury.  Go  where  we  will,  the  difficulty  is  the 
same.  Allow  it  to  drive  us  from  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  it 
will  just  as  easily  drive  us  from  the  State  legislatures.  Let  us, 
then,  grapple  with  it,  and  test  its  strength.  Let  us,  judging 
the  future  by  the  past,  ascertain  whether  there  may  not  be,  in 
the  discretion  of  Congress,  a  sufficient  power  to  limit  and  re- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  339 


strain  this  expansive  tendency  within  reasonable  and  proper 
bounds.  The  President  himself  values  the  evidence  of  the 
past.  He  tells  us,  that  at  a  certain  point  of  our  history,  moro 
than  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  had  been  appLedfor,  to 
make  improvements  ;  and  this  he  does  to  prove  that  the  treas 
ury  would  be  overwhelmed  by  such  a  system.  Why  did  he 
not  tell  us  how  much  was  granted  ?  Would  not  that  have  been 
better  evidence?  Let  us  turn  to  it,  and  see  what  it  proves. 
In  the  Message  the  President  tells  us,  that  u  during  the  four 
succeeding  years,  embraced  by  the  administration  of  President 
Adams,  the  power  not  only  to  appropriate  money,  but  to  ap 
ply  it,  under  the  direction  and  authority  of  the  general  govern 
ment,  as  well  to  the  construction  of  roads  as  to  the  improve 
ment  of  rivers  and  harbors,  was  fully  asserted  and  exercised." 
This,  then,  was  the  period  of  greatest  enormity.  These,  if 
any,  must  be  the  days  of  the  two  hundred  millions.  And  how 
much  do  you  suppose  was  really  expended  for  improvements 
during  that  four  years'?  Two  hundred  millions?  One  hun 
dred  ?  Fifty  ?  Ten l?  Five  ?  No,  sir ;  less  than  two  mil 
lions.  As  shown  by  authentic  documents,  the  expenditures 
on  improvements  during  1825,  1826,  1827,  and  1828, 
amounted  to  $1,879,000  01 .  These  four  years  were  the  period 
of  Mr.  Adams's  administration,  nearly  and  substantially.  This 
fact  shows,  that  when  the  power  to  make  improvements  was 
"fully  maintained  and  exercised,"  the  Congresses  did  keep 
within  reasonable  limits ;  and  what  has  been  done,  it  seems 
to  me,  can  be  done  again. 

Now  for  the  second  position  of  the  Message,  namely,  that 
the  burdens  of  the  improvements  would  be  general,  vrhile  their 
lenefits  would  be  local  and  partial,  involving  an  obnoxious  ine 
quality.  That  there  is  some  degree  of  truth- in  this  position  I 
will  not  deny.  No  commercial  object  of  government  patron 
age  can  be  so  exclusively  general  as  not  to  be  of  some  peculiar 
local  advantage  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  nothing  is  so  local  as  not 
to  be  of  some  general  advantage.  The  navy,  as  I  understand  it, 
was  established,  and  is  maintained  at  a  great  annual  expense, 
partly  to  be  ready  for  war,  when  war  shall  come,  but  partly, 
also,  and  perhaps  chiefly,  for  the  protection  of  our  commerce 
on  the  high  seas.  The  latter  object  is,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  in 
principle,  the  same  as  internal  improvements.  The  driving  of 
a  pirate  from  the  track  of  commerce,  on  the  broad  ocean,  and 


340  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 

the  removing  of  a  snag  from  its  more  narrow  path  in  the  Mis 
sissippi  river,  cannot,  I  think,  be  distinguished  in  principle. 
Each  is  done  to  save  life  and  property,  and  for  nothing  else. 
The  navy,  then,  is  the  most  general  in  its  benefits  of  all  this 
class  of  objects  ;  and  yet  the  navy  is  of  some  peculiar  advan 
tage  to  Charleston,  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  New- York,  and 
Boston,  beyond  what  it  is  to  the  interior  towns  of  Illinois. 
The  next  most  general  object  I  can  think  of,  would  be  the  im 
provement  of  the  Mississippi  river  and  its  tributaries.  They 
touch  thirteen  of  our  States — Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Ken 
tucky,  Tennessee,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missouri, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa.  Now,  I  sup 
pose  it  will  rot  be  denied,  that  these  thirteen  States  area  little 
more  interested  in  improvements  on  that  great  river  than  the 
remaining  seventeen.  These  instances  of  the  navy  and  tlTe 
Mississippi  river,  show  clearly  that  there  is  something  of  local 
advantage  in  the  most  general  objects.  But  the  converse  is 
true.  Nothing  is  so  local  as  not  be  of  some  general  benefit. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal— consider 
ed  apart  from  its  effects,  it  is  perfectly  local ;  every  inch  of  it 
is  within  the  State  of  Illinois.  That  canal  was  first  opened 
for  business  last  April.  In  a  very  few  days  we  were  all  grat 
ified  to  learn,  among  other  things,  that  sugar  had  been  carried 
through  the  canal  from  New-Orleans  to  Buffalo,  in  New- York. 
This  sugar  took  this  route,  doubtless,  because  it  was  cheaper 
than  the  old  route.  Supposing  the  benefit  in  the  reduction  of 
the  cost  of  carriage  to  be  shared  between  the  buyer  and  seller, 
the  result  is,  that  the  New-Orleans  merchant  sold  his  sugar  a 
little  dearer,  and  the  people  of  Buffalo  sweetened  their  coffee 
a  little  cheaper  than  before — a  benefit  resulting  from  the  canal, 
not  to- Illinois  where  the  canal  w,  but  to  Louisiana  and  New- 
York,  where  it  is  not.  In  other  transactions  Illinois  will,  of 
course,  have  her  share,  and  perhaps  the  larger  share  too,  in 
the  benefits  of  the  canal ;  but  the  instance  of  the  sugar  clearly 
shows,  that  the  benefits  of  an  improvement  are,  by  no  means, 
confined  to  the  locality  of  the  improvement  itself. 

The  just  conclusion  from  all  this  is,  that  if  the  nation  re 
fuse  to  make  improvements  of  the  more  general  kind,  because 
their  benefits  may  be  somewhat  local,  a  State  may,  for  the 
same  reason,  refuse  to  make  an  improvement  of  a  local  kind, 
because  its  benefits  may  be  somewhat  general.  A  State  may 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  341 

well  say  to  the  nation,  "  If  you  will  do  nothing  for  me,  I  will 
do  nothing  for  you."  Thus  it  is  seen,  that  if  this  argument 
of  "  inequality"  is  sufficient  anywhere,  it  is  sufficient  every 
where,  and  puts  an  end  to  improvement  altogether.  I  hope 
and  believe,  that  if  the  nation  and  the  States  would,  in  good 
faith,  in  their  respective  spheres,  do  what  they  could  in  the 
way  of  improvements,  what  of  inequality  might  be  produced 
in  one  place  might  be  compensated  in  another,  and  that  the 
sum  of  the  whole  would  not  be  very  unequal.  But  suppose, 
after  all,  there  should  be  some  degree  of  inequality :  inequal 
ity  is  certainly  never  to  be  embraced  for  its  own  sake ;  but  is 
every  good  thing  to  be  discarded  which  may  be  inseparably 
connected  with  some  degree  of  it  ?  If  so,  we  must  discard 
all  government.  This  capitol  is  built  at  the  public  expense, 
for  the  public  benefit ;  but  does  any  one  doubt  that  it  is  of 
some  peculiar  local  advantage  to  the  property-holders  and 
business  people  of  Washington  ?  Shall  we  remove  it  for  this 
reason  ?  And  if  so,  where  shall  we  set  it  down,  and  be  free 
from  the  difficulty  ?  To  make  sure  of  our  object  shall  we 
locate  it  nowhere,  and  have  Congress  hold'  its  sessions,  as 
the  loafer  lodges,  "  in  spots  about  I"  I  make  no  special  allu 
sion  to  the  present  President  when  I  say  there  are  few  stronger 
cases  of  "  burden  to  the  many,  and  benefit  to  the  few" — of 
"  inequality" — than  the  Presidency  itself  is  by  some  thought  to 
be.  An  honest  laborer  digs  coal  at  about  seventy  cents  a 
day,  while  the  President  digs  abstractions  at  about  seventy 
dollars  a  day.  The  coal  is  clearly  worth  more  than  the  ab 
stractions^  and  yet  what  a  monstrous  unequality  in  the  prices ! 
Does  the  President,  for  this  reason,  wish  to  abolish  the  Presi 
dency  ?  He  does  not,  and  he  ought  not.  The  true  rule  in  de 
termining  to  embrace  or  reject  anything,  is  not  whether  it 
have  any  evil  in  it,  but  whether  it  have  more  of  evil  than  of 
good.  There  are  few  thupgs  wholly  evil  or  wholly  good.  Al 
most  everything,  especially  in  governmental  policy,  is  an  in 
separable  compound  of  the  two,  so  that  our  best  judgment  of 
the  preponderance  between  them  is  continually  demanded.  On 
this  principle,  the  President,  his  friends,  and  the  world  gener 
ally,  act  on  most  subjects.  Why  not  apply  it,  then,  upon  this 
question  ?  Why,  as  to  improvements,  magnify  the  evil,  and 
stoutly  refuse  to  see  any  good  in  them  1 

Mr.  Chairman,  on  the  third  position  of  the  message  (the 


342  LIFE     AND    SPEECHES    OF 


constitutional  question)  I  have  not  much  to  say.  Being  tho 
man  I  am,  and  speaking  when  I  do,  I  feel  that  any  attempt  at 
an  original  constitutional  argument,  I  should  not  he,  and 
ought  not  to  be  listened  to  patiently.  The  ablest  and  best  of 
men  have  gone  over  the  whole  ground  long  ago.  I  shall  at 
tempt  but  little  more  than  a  brief  notice  of  what  some  of 
them  have  said.  In  reference  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  views,  I  read 
from  Mr.  Folk's  veto  message  : 

"  President  Jefferson,  in  his  message  to  Congress  in  1806, 
recommended  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  with  a  view 
to  apply  an  anticipated  surplus  in  the  treasury  '  to  the  great 
purposes  of  public  education,  roads,  rivers,  canals,  and  such 
other  objects  of  public  improvements  as  it  may  be  thought 
proper  to  add  to  the  constitutional  enumeration  of  the  fed 
eral  powers.'  "  And  he  adds,  "  I  suppose  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  by  consent  of  the  States,  necessary,  because 
the  objects  now  recommended  are  not  among  those  enumer 
ated  in  the  Constitution,  and  to  which  it  permits  the  public 
monies  to  be  applied."  In  1825,  he  repeated,  in  his  published 
letters,  the  opinion  that  no  such  power  has  been  conferred  on 
Congress.  I  introduce  this,  not  to  controvert,  just  now,  the 
constitutional  opinion,  but  to  show  that  on  the  question  of 
expediency,  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinion  was  against  the  present 
President — that  this  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  one  branch, 
at  least,  is,  in  the  bands  of  Mr.  Polk,  like  Fingal's  gun — 

**  Beats  wide,  and  kicks  the  owner  over." 

But,  to  the  constitutional  question  : 

In  182G,  Chancellor  Kent  first  published  his  commentaries 
on  American  law.  He  devoted  a  portion  of  one  of  the 
lectures  to  the  question  of  the  authority  of  Congress  to  appro 
priate  public  moneys  for  internal  improvements.  He  mention 
ed  that  the  question  had  never  been  brought  under  judicial 
consideration,  and  proceeds  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  the 
discussions  it  had  undergone  between  the  legislative  and  exec- 
'Utive  branches  of  the  government. 

Pie  shows  that  the  legislative  branch  had  usually  been  for, 
and  executive  ayaiiitt  the  power,  till  the  period  of  Mr.  J  Q. 
Adams'  administration;  at  which  point  he  considers  the  exec 
utive  influence  as  withdrawn  from  opposition  and  added  to  the 
support  of  the  power. 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN.  343 

In  1844  the  Chancellor  published  a  new  edition  of  his  com 
mentaries,  in  which  he  adds  some  notes  of  what  had  tran 
spired  on  the  question  since  1826.  I  have  not  time  to  read 
the  original  text  or  the  notes,  but  the  whole  may  be  found  on 
page  267  and  the  two  or  three  following  pages  of  the  first  vol 
ume  of  the  edition  of  '44.  As  to  what  Chancellor  Kent  seems 
to  consider  the  sum  of  the  whole,  I  read  from  one  of  the  notes : 
"  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  his  commentaries  on  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  vol.  ii.,  page  429-440,  and  again,  page 
519-538,  has  stated  at  large  the  arguments  for  and  against  the 
proposition  that  Congress  have  a  constitutional  power  to  lay 
taxes,  and  to  apply  the  power  to  regulate  commerce,  as  a 
means  to  encourage  and  protect  domestic  manufactures  ;  and, 
without  giving  any  opinion  of  his  own  on  the  contested  doc 
trine,  he  has  left  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  conclusions.  I 
should  think,  however,  from  the  arguments  as  stated,  that 
every  mind  which  has  tuken  no  part  in  the  discussions,  and  felt 
no  prejudice  or  territorial  bias  on  either  side  of  the  question, 
would  deem  the  argument  in  favor  of  Congressional  power 
vastly  superior." 

It  will  be  seen,  that  in  this  extract  the  power  to  make  im 
provements  is  not  directly  mentioned,  but  by  examining  the 
context,  both  of  Kent  and  of  Story,  it  will  appear  that  the 
power  mentioned  in  the  extract,  and  the  power  to  make  im 
provements,  are  regarded  as  identical.  It  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  many  great  and  good  men  have  been  against  the  power  ; 
but  it  is  insisted  that  quite  as  many,  as  great  and  as  good, 
have  been  jor  it;  and  it  is  shown  that,  on  full  survey  of  the 
whole,  Chancellor  Kent  was  of  opinion  that  the  arguments  of 
the  latter  were  vastly  superior.  This  is  but  the  opinion  of  a 
man,  but  who  was  that  man?  He  was  one  of  the  ablest  and 
most  learned  lawyers  of  his  age,  or  of  any  age.  It  is  no  dis 
paragement  to  Mr.  Polk,  nor,  indeed,  to  any  one  who  devotes 
much  time  to  politics,  to  be  placed  far  behind  Chancellor  Kent 
«s  a  lawyer.  His  attitude  was  most  favorable  to  correct 
conclusions.  He  wrote  coolly  and  in  retirement.  He  was 
struggling  to  rear  a  durable  monument  of  fame,  and  he  well 
knew  that  truth  and  thoroughly  sound  reasoning  were  the  only 
sure  foundations.  Can  the  party  opinion  of  a  party  President 
on  a  law  question,  as  this  purely  is,  be  at  all  compared  or 
set  in  opposition  to  that  of  such  a  man',  in  such  an  attitude,  as 
Chancellor  Kent? 


344  LIFE    AND    SPEECHES    OF 

This  constitutional  question  will  probably  never  be  better 
settled  than  it  is,  until  it  shall  pass  under  judicial  consideration  ; 
but  I  do  think  no  man  who  is  clear  on  this  question  of  ex 
pediency  need  feel  his  conscience  much  pricked  on  this. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  President  seems  to  think  that  enough 
may  be  done  in  the  way  of  improvements  by  means  of  ton 
nage  dues,  under  State  authority,  with  the  consent  of  the  gen 
eral  government.  Now,  I  suppose  this  matter  of  tonnage 
duties  is  well  enough  in  its  own  sphere.  I  suppose  it  may  be 
efficient,  and  perhaps  sufficient,  to  make  slight  improvements 
and  repairs  in  harbors  already  in  use,  and  not  much  out  of  re 
pairs.  But  if  I  have  any  correct  general  idea  of  it,  it  must  be 
wholly  inefficient  for  any  generally  beneficent  purposes  of  im 
provement.  I  know  very  little,  or  rather  nothing  at  all,  of 
of  the  practical  matters  of  levying  and  collecting  tonnage 
duties,  but  I  suppose  that  one  of  its  principles  must  be,  to  lay 
a  duty  for  the  improvement  of  any  particular  harbor,  upon  the 
tonnage  coming  into  that  harbor.  To  do  otherwise — to  collect 
money  at  one  harbor  to  be  expended  on  improvements  on 
another  —  would  be  an  extremely  aggravated  form  of  that 
inequality  which  the  President  so  much  deprecates.  If  I  be 
right  in  this,  how  could  we  make  any  entirely  new  improve 
ments  by  means  of  tonnage  duties  ?  How  make  a  road,  a 
canal,  or  clear  a  greatly  obstructed  river  ?  The  idea  that  we 
could,  involves  the  same  absurdity  of  the  Irish  bull  about  the 
new  boots:  "  I  shall  never  git  'em  on,"  says  Patrick,  "  till  I 
wears  'em  a  day  or  two,  and  stretch  'em  a  little."  We  shall 
never  make  a  canal  by  tonnage  duties  until  it  shall  already 
have  been  made  awhile,  so  the  tonnage  can  get  into  it. 

After  all,  the  President  concludes  that  possibly  there  may 
be  someL  great  objects  of  improvement  which  cannot  be  effected 
by  tonnage  duties,  and  which,  therefore,  may  be  expedient  for 
the  general  government  to  take  in  hand.  Accordingly,  he 
suggests,  in  case  any  such  should  be  discovered,  the  propriety 
of  amending  the  Constitution.  Amend  it  for  what?  If,  like 
Mr.  Jefferson,  the  President  thought  improvements  expedient, 
but  not  constitutional,  it  would  be  natural  enough  for  him 
to  recommend  such  an  amendment ;  but  hear  what  he  says 
hit  his  very  message : 

'"  In  view  of  these  portentous  consequences,  I  cannot  but 
think  that  this  course  oft  legislation  should  be  arrested,  even  if 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  345 


there  were  nothing  to  forbid  it  in  the  fundamental  laws  of  our 
Union." 

For  what,  then,  would  he  have  the  Constitution  amend 
ed  ?  .With  him  it  is  a  proposition  to  remove  one  impediment, 
merely  to  be  met  by  others,  which,  in  his  opinion,  cannot  be 
removed — to  enable  Congress  to  do  what,  in  his  opinion,  they 
ought  not  to  do  if  they  could. 

[Here  Mr.  Meade.  of  Virginia,  inquired  if  Mr.  Lincoln 
understood  the  President  to  be  opposed,  on  grounds  of  ex 
pediency,  to  any  and  every  improvement] 

To  which  Mr.  Lincoln  answered  :  In  the  very  part  of  his 
message  of  which  I  am  now  speaking,  I  understand  him  as 
giving  some  vague  expressions  in  favor  of  some  possible  ob 
jects  of  improvements ;  but,  in  doing  so,  I  understand  to  be 
directly  in  the  teeth  of  his  own  argument  in  the  other  parts 
of  it.  Neither  the  President,  nor  any  one,  can  possibly 
specify  an  improvement,  which  shall  not  be  liable  to  one  or 
the  other  objections  he  has  urged  on  the  score  of  expediency. 
I  have  shown,  and  might  show  again,  that  no  work — no  ob 
ject — can  be  so  general  as  to  dispense  its  benefits  with  precise 
equality  ;  and  this  inequality  is  among  the  "  portentous  con 
sequences  "  for  which  he  declare  the  improvements  should  be 
arrested.  No,  sir  ;  when  the  President  intimates  that  some 
thing  in  the  way  of  improvements  may  properly  be  done  by 
the  general  government,  he  is  shrinking  from  the  conclusions 
to  which  his  own  argument  would  force  him.  He  feels  not 
that  the  improvements  of  this  broad  and  goodly  land  are  a 
mighty  interest,  and  he  is  unwilling  to  confess  to  the  people, 
and  perhaps  to  himself,  that  he  has  built  an  argument  which, 
when  pressed  to  its  conclusion,  utterly  annihilate  this  interest. 

I  have  already  said  that  no  one  who  is  satisfied  of  the  ex 
pediency  of  making  improvements,  need  be  much  uneasy  in 
his  conscience  about  its  unconstitutionally.  I  wish  now  to 
submit  a  few  remarks  on  the  general  proposition  of  amending 
the  Constitution.  As  a  general  rule,  I  think  we  would  do 
much  better  to  let  it  alone.  No  slight  occasion  should  tempt 
us  to  touch  it.  Better  not  take  the  first  step,  which  may  lead 
to  a  habit  of  altering  it.  Better,  rather,  to  habituate  our 
selves  to  think  it  unalterable.  It  can  scarcely  be  made  better 
than  it  is.  New  provisions  would  introduce  new  difficulties, 
and  thus  create  and  increase  still  further  appetite  for  change. 

15* 


346  LIFE    AND     SPEECHES    OF 


No,  sir  ;  let  it  stand  as  it  is.  New  hands  have  never  touched 
it.  The  men  who  made  it  Lave  done  their  work,  and  have 
passed  away.  Who  shall  improve  on  what  they  did  ? 

Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  purpose  of  reviewing  this  message  in 
the  least  possible  time,  as  well  as  for  the  sake  of  distinctness, 
I  have  analyzed  its  arguments  as  well  as  I  could,  and  reduced 
them  to  the  propositions  I  have  stated.  I  have  now  examined 
them  in  detail.  I  wish  to  detain  the  committee  only  a  little 
while  longer,  with  some  general  remarks  on  the  subject  of  im 
provement.  That  the  subject  is  a  difficult  one,  cannot  be 
denied.  Still,  it  is  no  more  difficult  in  Congress  than  it  is  in  the 
State  legislatures,  in  the  counties,  or  in  the  smallest  municipal 
districts  which  anywhere  exist.  All  can  recur  to  instances 
of  this  difficulty  in  the  case  of  country  roads,  bridges,  and  the 
like.  One  man  is  offended  because  the  road  passes  over  his 
land ;  another  is  offended  because  it  does  not  pass  over  his  ; 
one  is  dissatisfied  because  the  bridge,  for  which  he  is  taxed, 
crosses  the  river  on  a  different  road  from  that  which  leads 
from  his  house  to  town  ;  another  cannot  bear  that  the  county 
should  get  in  debt  for  these  same  roads  and  bridges ;  while  not 
a  few  struggle  hard  to  have  roads  located  over  their  land?, 
and  then  stoutly  refuse  to  let  them  be  opened,  until  they  are 
first  paid  the  damages.  Even  between  the  different  wards 
and  streets  of  towns  and  cities,  we  find  the  same  wrangling 
and  difficulty.  Now  these  are  no  other  than  the  very  diffi 
culties  against  which,  and  out  of  which,  the  President  con 
structs  his  objections  0f  " inequality,"  "speculation"  and 
"  crushing  the  treasury."  There  is  but  a  single  alternative 
about  them — they  ape  sufficient,  or  they  are  not.  If  sufficient, 
they  are  sufficient  out  of  Congress  as  well  as  in  it,  and  there 
is  an  end.  We  must  reject  them  as  insufficient,  or  lie  down 
and  do  nothing  by  any  authority.  Then,  difficulty  though 
there  be,  let  us  ineet  and  overcome  it. 

"  Attempt  the  end,  and  never  come  to  doubt ; 
Nothing  so  hard,  but  search  will  find  it  out.  ' 

Determine  that  the  thing  can  and  shall  be  done,  and  then  we 
shall  find  the  way.  The  tendency  to  undue  expansion  is  unques 
tionably  the  chief  difficulty.  How  to  do  something,  and  still  not 
do  too  much,  is  the  desideratum.  Let  each  contribute  his  mite  in 
the  way  of  suggestion.  The  late  Silas  Wright,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Chicago  Convention,  contributed  his,  which  was  worth  some- 


ABRAHAM     LINCOLN.  347 

tiling;  and  I  now  contribute  mine,  which  may  be  worth  noth 
ing.  At  all  events  it  will  mislead  nobody,  and  therefore  will  do 
no  harm.  I  would  not  borrow  money.  I  am  against  an  over 
whelming,  crushing  system.  Suppose  that  at  each  session  Con 
gress  shall  first  determine  how  much  money  can,  for  that  year,  be 
spared  for  improvements  ;  then  apportion  that  sum  to  the  most 
important  objects.  80  far  all  is  easy  ;  but  how  shall  we  deter 
mine  which  are  the  most  important?  On  this  question  comes 
the  collision  of  interests.  I  shall  be  slow  to  acknowledge  that 
your  harbor,  or  your  river,  is  more  important  than  mine,  and 
vice  versa.  To  clear  this  difficulty,  let  us  have  that  same  sta 
tistical  information  which  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Vin- 
ton)  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  this  session.  In  that  infor 
mation  we  shall  have  a  stern,  unbending  basis  of  facts — a  basis 
in  no  wise  subject  to  whim,  caprice,  or  local  interest.  The 
pre-limited  amount  of  means  will  save  us  from  doing  too  much, 
and  the  statistics  will  save  us  from  doing  what  we  do  in  wrong 
places.  Adopt  and  adhere  to  this  course,  and,  it  seems  to  me, 
the  difficulty  is  cleared. 

One  of  the  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  Rhett)  very 
much  deprecates  these  statistics.  He  particularly  objects,  as 
I  understand  him,  to  counting  all  the  pigs  and  chickens  in  the 
land.  I  do  not  perceive  much  force  in  the  objection.  It  is 
true,  that  if  everything  be  enumerated,  a  portion  of  such  sta 
tistics  may  not  be  very  useful  to  this  object.  Such  products 
of  this  country  as  are  to  be  consumed  where  they  are  produced, 
need  no  roads  and  rivers,  no  means  of  transportation,  and 
have  no  very  proper  connection  with  this  subject.  The  sur 
plus,  that  which  is  produced  in  one  place  to  be  consumed  in  an 
other  ;  the  capacity  of  each  locality  to  produce  a  greater  sur 
plus  ;  the  natural  means  of  transprrtation,  and  their  suscepti 
bility  of  improvement  ;  the  hindrances,  delays,  and  losses  of 
life  and  property  during  transportation,  and  the  causes  of  each, 
would  be  among  the  most  valuable  statistics  in  this  connection. 
From  these  it  would  readily  apper  where  a  given  amount  of 
expenditure  would  do  the  most  good.  These  statistics  might 
be  equally  accessible,  as  they  would  be  equally  useful,  to  both 
the  nation  and  the  States.  In  this  way,  and  by  these  means, 
let  the  nation  take  hold  of  the  larger  works,  and  the  States 
the  smaller  ones,  and  thus,  working  in  a  meeting  direction,  dis 
creetly,  but  steadily  and  firmly,  what  is  made  unequal  ki  one 


348       LIFE   AND    SPEECHES   OF    ABRAHAM   LINCOLN. 

place  may  be  equalized  in  another,  extravagance  avoided,  and 
the  whole  country  put  on  that  career  of  prosperity  which 
shall  correspond  with  its  extent  of  territory,  its  natural  re 
sources,  and  the  intelligence  and  enterprise  of  its  people. 


SKETCH 

OF    THE 


LIFE  OF  HANNIBAL  HAMLIN, 

REPURLICAN   CANDIDATE   FOR   VICE-PRESIDENT. 


MR.  HAMLIN  was  born  in  Paris,  county  of  Oxford,  State 
of  Maine,  August  27,  1809.  His  father,  Dr.  Cyrus  Hamlin, 
was  a  surgeon  and  physician,  and  a  native  of  Massachusetts. 
He  was  clerk  of  the  courts  for  several  years,  and  subsequently 
sheriff  of  Oxford  county.  He  was  one  of  the  leading  influ- 
mtial  citizens  of  his  town  and  county,  and  died  in  1828,  aged 
about  fifty-eight  years. 

Mr.  Hamlin's  mother  was  a  daughter  of  Dea.  Elijah  Liv- 
ermore,  of  the  town  of  Livermore,  Oxford  county,  Maine. 
She  was  a  rery  estimable  lady,  and  died  in  1851,  aged  about 
seventy.  Mr.  Hamlin  was  fitted  for  college,  but  his  father 
dying,  he  abandoned  the  idea  of  a  college  course,  and  for  a 
while  labored  at  home  upon  the  old  homestead  farm.  Before 
commencing  the  study  of  law,  he  worked  in  a  printing  office 
in  his  native  town,  and  for  more  than  a  year  conducted  the 
Jeffersonian,  since  merged  in  the  Oxford  Democrat,  in  connec 
tion  with  the  Hon.  Horatio  King.  Subsequently,  he  studied 
law  with  the  late  Judge  Cole,  and  after  completing  his  course 
of  study,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  removed  to  Hamp- 
den,  Maine,  where  he  enjoyed  an  extensive  practice  until  he 
voluntarily  retired  from  it.  His  first  entrance  into  public 
life  was  in  1886,  when  he  was  elected  a  representative  from 
the  town  of  Hampden  to  the  Maine  legislature.  He  was  re- 


350        SKETCH   OF   HANNIBAL   HAMLIN. 

elected  in  1837,  1838,  1839,  1840,  and  again  in  1847  He 
was  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives  in  1837,  1839, 
and  1840.  In  1840  he  was  a  candidate  for  Congress,  but 
owing  to  the  great  popularity  of  General  Harrison,  and  the 
remarkable  success  of  the  Whig  party  in  that  campaign,  he 
was  defeated  by  a  few  hundred  votes.  Jn  1842  he  again  run 
for  Congress,  and  was  elected  by  a  large  majority,  and  in  1844 
he  was  also  elected  to  the  same  body,  by  an  increased  vote. 
By  the  death  of  the  lamented  Governor  Fail-field,  a  vacancy 
was  created  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  on  the  26th  of 
May,  1848,  Mr.  Hamlin  was  elected  for  four  years  to  fill  that 
vacancy. 

In  July,  1851,  he  was  re-elected  to  the  Senate  for  six  years. 
In  1856,  he  was  elected  Governor  of  Maine,  and  resigned  his 
seat  in  the  Senate  to  assume  the  duties  of  the  office,  January 
7,  1857.  On  the  l§th  day  of  the  same  month,  he  was  elected 
by  both  branches  of  the  legislature  to  the  United  States  Sen 
ate  for  six  years,  and  resigned  the  office  of  Governor,  Febru 
ary  20,  1857.  Until  he  resigned  the  position,  he  was  for  a 
long  time  chairman  of  the  committee  on  commerce  in  the 
Senate. 

The  above  brief  sketch  of  the  early  life  and  public  services 
of  Mr.  Hamlin,  while  it  may  be  a  matter  of  interest  to  the 
American  people,  is  far  from  being  all  they  inquire  after  con 
nected  with  his  personal  history.  Placed  as  he  now  is  before 
the  people  of  this  great  country,  as  a  candidate  for  the  second 
office  in  their  gift,  it  is  perfectly  natural  they  should  desire  to 
know  something  of  his  political  history  and  public  record 

Mr.  Hamlin's  antecedents  are  democratic.  On  arriving  at 
his  majority,  he  connected  himself  with  the  old  Democratic 
party,  and  acted  with  that  political  organization  until  1856, 
when,  in  a  brief  and  eloquent  speech  in  the  Senate,  he  pub 
licly  withdrew  from  it,  and  allied  himself  to  the  Republican 
party.  Upon  looking  over  Mr.  Hamlin's  public  record  in 


SKETCH   OF   HANNIBAL   HAMLIN.         351 

Congress  upon  the  slavery  question,  we  find  nothing  inconsis 
tent  with  his  present  position  upon  that  subject.  When  he 
first  entered  Congress,  he  manfully  battled  for  the  right  of 
petition  against  the  gag  rules  introduced  into  that  body.  He 
not  only  voted  to  receive  the  petitions  of  the  people,  but  upon 
more  than  one  occasion  spoke  eloquently  in  favor  of  this  great 
constitutional  right. 

In  1845,  while  he  voted  against  the  joint  resolution  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  yet  he  was  not  opposed  to  the  measure 
provided  it  could  be  brought  about  by  negotiation  and  treaty, 
and  provided  further  that  at  least  an  equal  portion  of  said 
domain  should  be 'kept  free  territory,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
great  laboring  interests  of  the  free  States.  Had  his  counsels, 
and  the  counsels  of  Colonel  Benton,  Silas  Wright,  and  other 
great  lights  in  the  party,  been  adhered  to,  the  Mexican  war 
and  all  its  evil  consequences  would  have  been  avoided. 

When  the  "  Two-Million  Bill "  was  before  the  House  in 
1846-7,  proposing  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  President  a 
certain  amount  of  money  with  which  to  negotiate  a  treaty  of 
peace  with  Mexico,  Mr.  Hamlin  stood  up  side  by  side  with 
David  Wilmot,  Preston  King,  and  other  influential  democrats, 
in  defence  of  the  celebrated  "Proviso"  known  as  the  "Wil 
mot  Proviso,"  prepared  by  Judge  Wilmot,  yet  actuallg  offered 
by  Mr.  Hamlin,  in  the  absence  of  the  author.  For  this  pro 
viso  he  uniformly  voted  and  labored  until  it  passed  the  House. 

In  the  house  of  representatives,  in  Maine,  at  the  session  in 
1347 — to  which  he  was  elected  immediately  after  his  return 
from  Congress — he  introduced  resolutions  embodying  the  same 
sentiments,  advocated  them  in  a  masterly  speech,  and  mainly 
through  his  influence  they  passed  the  house  with  only  six 
nays,  and  the  senate  with  only  one  dissenting  vote. 

Following  up  his  record  upon  this  question,  we  find  him 
voting  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  1848,  in  favor  of  the 
Jefferson  Proviso  for  the  restriction  of  slaveery  in  the  bill  for 


352         SKETCH    OF    HANNIBAL    HAM  LIN. 

the  organization  of  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon.  Still 
later,  in  1850,  he  voted  to  insert  a  similar  restriction  in  the 
bills  giving  territorial  governments  to  Utah  and  New-Mexico. 
The  proviso  being  defeated,  he  voted  against  the  bills  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  instructions  of  a  democratic  legislature  in 
Maine. 

In  the  same  year,  1850,  Mr.  Hamlin  made  the  first  speech 
in  the  United  States  Senate  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  ad 
mission  of  California  as  a  free  State,  and  his  speech  was  then 
considered  one  of  the  most  able  delivered  upon  that  subject. 

He  also  voted  against  the  bill  giving  ten  millions  of  dollars 
to  Texas,  for  the  relinquishment  of  lands  to  which  she  never 
had  the  slightest  title.  In  1854,  following  his  own  convic 
tions  of  duty,  he  labored  and  voted  against  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  compromise,  in  strict  conformity  with  the  resolutions 
of  the  then  democratic  legislature  of  Maine,  and  then  in  the 
last  Congress  did  all  in  his  power  to  defeat  the  perfidious  Le- 
compton  Constitution. 

We  have  thus  given  Mr.  Hamlin's  record  upon  some  of  the 
great  leading  questions  connected  with  the  subject  of  slavery 
during  the  last  fourteen  years,  showing  that  upon  no  occasion 
has  he  ever  acted  or  voted  in  any  way  not  perfectly  consistent 
with  this  record.  Upon  other  matters,  during  his  long  Con 
gressional  career,  his  votes  have  been  uniformly  consistent  and 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  man.  Upon  all 
matters  of  financial  policy,  while  he  never  has  been  disposed 
to  withhold  justice  from  honest  claimants,  he  has  sternly  re 
sisted  dishonest,  fraudulent  claims,  got  up  with  an  intention 
to  rob  the  treasury.  In  justice  to  Mr.  Hamlin,  we  should 
here  say  that  no  man  in  Congress  for  the  last  twenty  years 
has  been  more  faithful,  or  has  labored  more  untiringly  to  aid 
poor  but  honest  claimants  upon  the  bounty  of  the  govern 
ment  than  he.  There  is  scarcely  a  town  in  the  State  of 
Maine,  where  you  will  not  find  men  who  have  been  made  in- 


SKETCH   OF   HANNIBAL   HAMLIN.         353 

valids  in  their  country's  service,  widows  and  orphans,  who 
are  now  living  upon  the  little  bounty  obtained  for  their  relief 
through  his  prompt  and  effective  influences  and  labors.  No 
honest  complainant,  however  poor  or  humble,  was  ever  coldly 
turned  away  from  the  presence  of  Senator  Hamlin.  Schemes 
of  public  plunder  which  frequently  find  their  way  into  Con 
gress,  never  obtain  favor  with  him. 

Another  trait  of  character  which  has  always  given  him 
great  popularity  with  the  people,  is  his  strict  honesty  and  stern 
moral  integrity.  No  man  can  be  found  who  will  rise  up  and 
say  Hannibal  Hamlin  ever  cheated  him,  politically  or  in  any 
other  way.  His  whole  life  has  been  marked  by  a  strict  atten 
tion  to  every  public  duty  incident  to  his  official  positions. 

As  a  public  speaker  is  is  superfluous  for  us  to  speak  of  our 
distinguished  Senator.  In  this  respect  the  whole  country  is 
well  informed.  Few  men  have  a  more  enviable  reputation  as 
forensic  debators. 

Senator  Hamlin's  sympathies  have  always  been  strongly 
with  the  masses.  This,  perhaps,  accounts  for  his  great  popu 
larity  with  the  people.  In  proof  of  this  we  have  only  to  re 
fer  to  his  election  as  Governor  of  Maine,  in  1856.  Without 
solicitation  on  his  part  and  against  his  wishes  at  the  largest 
political  convention  ever  holden  in  the  State,  he  was  on  the 
first  ballot  unanimously  selected  the  standard  bearer  of  the 
Republicans  in  the  ensuing  contest. 

The  Democrats,  aided  by  the  straight  Whigs,  had  carried  the 
State  the  year  before  by  about  five  thousand  majority,  and 
both  branches  of  the  Legislature. 

Senator  Hamlin  stumped  the  State  from  one  end  to  the 
other.  Nothing  but  the  great  fight  between  Douglas  and  Lin 
coln  ever  exceeded  it.  It  was  a  splendid  hard-fought  canvass. 

The  Democrats  had  Judge  Wells  their  standard  bearer  and 
all  the  distinguished  men  of  their  party  in  the  field,  pitted 
against  Hamlin  and  his  coadjutors.  Look  at  the  result.  The 


354     SKETCH     OF     HANNIBAL     HAM  LIN. 

Republicans  swept  the  State  and  elected  their  distinguished 
leader  by  about  twenty  thousand  majority.  So  highly  were 
Governor  Hamlin's  services  appreciated  in  the  U.  S.  Senate 
the  Legislature  of  Maine,  with  great  unanimity,  returned  him 
again  to  that  body  for  six  years.  Before  he  became  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  Mr.  Hamlin  had  an  extensive  practice  as  a 
lawyer.  Since  his  election  to  the  Senate  he  has  abandoned 
it,  and  now,  when  not  actively  engaged  in  his  public  duties? 
may  be  found,  like  the  great  and  distinguished  Silas  Wright, 
at  work  with  his  own  hands  on  his  farm,  in  the  rural,  quiet 
town  of  Hampden,  where,  at  his  hospitable  home,  his  numer 
ous  friends  always  meet  a  hearty  welcome. 

Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  life  and  character  of  Han 
nibal  Hamlin.  Possessed  of  great  legislative  experience,  wise 
in  counsel,  bold  and  determined  in  action,  true  to  his  friends 
and  his  country,  he  will  be  triumphantly  elected  to  the  high 
commendary  positionso  honorably  filled  by  a  long  line  of  illus 
trious  statesmen  in  the  past. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 


RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


UCD  LIBKARV 

9UEFEB24  1971 


LIBRARY,   UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,   DAVIS 

Book  Slip-55TO-10,'68(J404888)458— -A-31/5 


601536 

E457 

I  Bartlett,  D.V.G.          B294 

Life  and  public  ser-     c.2 
vices  of  Hon.  Abraham 
Lincoln. 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


